I jumped into 4K HDR on an OLED panel last year and I have to say I've never seen such exquisite cinema, even when compared to modern theatres. I'm enjoying this renaissance and I'm glad I'm managing to catch dozens of films on 4K UHD BR. I'm sitting about 1.5 meters from a 65-inch panel and it's just extraordinary. The most surprising thing about the format is the quality of some of these old films, many of which just look completely mind-blowing especially with the character of their film grain. You know you're getting right back to the basics of falling in love with film when you come off a mesmerizing screening like Close Encounters of the Third Kind, or Alien or Blade Runner and come away feeling like you're seeing the film in a way you've never had a chance to--at the theatre. That's the true gift of 4K UHD BR paired with an OLED panel: it's allowed me to see some of my favorite films in an environment that is as close as I can get to the creator's vision. This format is all I need for the rest of my days. For those of you who haven't made the jump, you owe it to yourself as a cinephile to get in while the getting is good.
I see you too are properly sitting very close to your screen when viewing 4k discs, which is the point that many don't understand. Sit too far away and you can't see the improved resolution, so take advantage of 4k and sit as close as practical. I have a 55 inch screen and sit about 5 feet away for 4k titles, and move seating back a couple feet when watching standard hd/1080.
@@pete49327 only way to go. And you're right: sitting far away robs you of the majesty of the 4K experience. A tight small theatre also does wonder for sound. The inverse square law makes large areas poorer for sound quality.
@@Edward135i It appears Sony and LG are still making players as well. I'm not sure about the quality difference between Panasonic and Sony, but Sony has an ES1100 model currently out.
My conclusion is still the same several years later and that is that if HDR had have been applied to standard Blu-ray then 4K wouldn't have been required at all. If we all had 25 foot wide screens at home it might be a different matter but we don't and therefore 4K on its own without HDR being exclusive to the format would have meant there was no point to the 4K home movie format. John.
That's very reassuring David. I do try to make them as interesting as possible so people would occasionally feel the need to watch something more than once. John.
I can certainly tell a difference, especially on older films that were originally shot on film. Newer digital films, there isn't as much of a noticeable difference since, a lot of times, the actual digital negatives are only 1080p.
Funnily enough I've just scrutinized the new Spider-Man film which is a 2K master but the 4K disc is immediately perceptibly superior. However, it's the HDR again and not the definition which really isn't that brilliant on either of them. Should make for an interesting review. John.
That's why I'm very selective of my 4k purchases and have only been going for 80s and 90s movies that I want. Well the releases that are actually good that is!
Thank you Steve. I'm hoping to add even more variety and interest as time goes on but it all depends on getting agreements from people and companies who do the work to produce the discs we enjoy or put the films on the big screens we love... such as the BFI IMAX but I suppose I can cross that one off the list now. John.
Long time! Again really good video! Absolutely agree, the best part of 4K is the HDR which is alone enough to get the 4K disc. However there are instances as you mentioned where 4K trumps the Blu-ray. Le Mans 66 is the perfect example. As is IT chapter 2. Excellent sound on that one too. The one I’m most looking forward to is the Lord of the rings 4K which hopefully should be out 3rd December!
I saw Lord Of The Rings at the Odeon Leicester Square and the image quality was poor so it may be a disappointment. Quality at the cinema was in a decline by then so perhaps modern equipment will be able to fashion a better transfer. I hope so anyway. Good to hear from you again Umar. I hope to be able to increase my TH-cam output a little soon but I am still a little tied up with 'Code Name: R40' which I hope to conclude soon.
@@Andersljungberg Disney's Dolby Atmos tracks tend to be weak though depending on the title, but other studios do a great job with that or DTS:X. Some regular blu-rays also get Dolby Atmos.
Excellent video. I've been training my eyes to see the difference between 4K and Blu ray. The biggest difference is often that 4K seems to have the correct color timing as opposed to blu rays having an odd tint or the brightness turned up too high . And of course the added resolution and clarity is nice. I think I'm addicted to 4K discs
I find that Blu-rays that have been authored from the same 4K video master file as the 4K disc tend to look identical other than the colour and density which is of course, HDR. Given that around half the screens in the UK were running 2K video projectors until recently (and many of them still are) I think that tells us all we need to know about 2K and 4K video. If cinemas think they can get away with it then there is surely going to be little perceptible difference in definition that we can make out on our tiny home screens. Well, I've struggled to see any difference other than HDR for five years now anyway. John.
Hello, really enjoy the channel. The home cinema stuff is inspiring. I realize this video is already 2 years old, but one topic that needs clarification is the theoretical video resolution equivalent of various film formats. Vista Vision, which i believe is an 8 perf horizontal 35mm format, you estimated to be about 20k. That may be true, but seems rather far fetched honestly, though I've never seen or done any tests myself. Regardless, I think we need to point out here that actual film release/theatrical prints we see in a cinema have much much less resolution than the original camera negative. So, the resolution disparity between film and digital releases isn't that far off. There have been a few tests studying the perceptual resolution of 35mm in the average cinema, and the very general take away was that they mostly resolve between 1-1.5k resolution. So, not even a true 2k. And that was taking into account various film negatives, lenses, print stocks, gate weave and focus issues. A very "global" approach to the question really, but practical. The idea was to get a sense what the average movie goer experiences in a cinema. It makes sense why 2k was the initial DCP spec. I personally still much prefer film, as resolution is simply one small part what our eye finds compelling. Not to mention, in the case of films shot before Digital Intermediates, the cinematographers were lighting and exposing their shots with the optical printing process of the release print in mind, not for future home theater releases scanned from the negative.
35mm is regularly estimated to be the equivalent of 6K Craig but that is probably 35mm negative stock. 2K is about one-sixth the capability of 35mm but I don't think it's fully possible to equate the two as one is electronic and the other is film. They are two different formats that achieve similar results in a different way. The VistaVision effect does help 2K though as a shrink down from any larger format ensures better image quality in the final 2K product just like VistaVision did for release prints all those years ago. My 20K statement was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. 20K is one of the current estimates for genuine IMAX which is probably about five times the size of VistaVision. Video projection has improved markedly in recent years but it looks like it can be made even better if Doug Trumbull was right with his MAGI solution, a part of which I believe involved putting a shutter in a video projector. The shutter may need to go in video cameras too to achieve the full natural effect that film is so superior with but it all remains to be seen. Certainly it's possible to realistically generate the essential fine film grain effect necessary to achieve life like images with video but not every current film makes seems to have attuned to that yet. This old video you're looking at was something that I made when my channel was in its infancy. If I'd have known the explosion that would occur a few months later, I'd have held on and done something far more in-depth. The problem is that you only really get one chance to do a video and once it's done, that's what you're stuck with. But it did open a few people's eyes because up to that point there was no one on TH-cam of any scale educating people of the superiority of film. Video is going to improve further whereas genuine IMAX surely is the limit of human ingenuity when it comes to film. We may therefore find that in ten years time video has matched or even improved on it. I do feel a little sorry for younger film enthusiasts who didn't live through the peak of film quality in cinemas. Those were wonderful days when every major new release on a Friday night was an event. Now we only get those sort of releases a couple of times a year if we're lucky. Fortunately, the big event for this year is coming up next month so don't miss out on seeing OPPENHEIMER in the real McCoy and not one of the cheapo, far lower quality video projection, faux IMAX cinemas. John.
Great review Mr. John. I really like your review style, It touches the authenticity of the film medium, very exciting and engaging to watch as a physical media lover+collector and a film tech geek like me. ☺️👍
I find that my 4K Sony TV does a great job with Bluray content and movies often look "4K" when played vs HD streaming content. I'm guessing this has to do with it's super-sampling or AI up-scaling engine as the cont, and the fact that Blu-Ray content holds so much more color data and detail than anything HD on a streaming service.
I did run Blu-ray through a standard Blu-ray player as well as an upscaling 4K James and I still couldn't see much difference, if any. I need to repeat that sometime but I think our tiny home screens just aren't big enough for us to see any improvement in overall clarity. It must be there but if we can't pick it up, there's not really much point. And I think that's a major reason why HDR is only available on 4K discs because that is what is making the difference. John.
My 4k TV upscales my Blu-rays beautifully. I really can’t see the point shelling out more money for 4k at this moment in time. I agree it’s like audiophiles - unless you are willing to pay crazy money on a large top of the range TV to get marginal gains then it’s not really worth it. My upscaled fav films on Blu ray like no country for old men or Blade runner 2049 for example look crazy good anyway! How good do they have to look!!!
Great video! I'd say the biggest problem with judging HDR on a projector is that unless you have a high end model and an anamorphic lens, you're not getting anywhere near the peak brightness of the HDR standard, so it isn't going to have the same impact as watching HDR on an OLED or high end LCD TV.
You may well be right there Mr. Terminator Juice. The HDR seems to look identical on my Panasonic 40 inch (i.e about 35 inches wide) television. I think this is because I always set up my equipment to resemble film as closely as possible whereas most people have the brightness way higher. Good point though and the way a video looks generally does seem to vary on different systems. John.
Very interesting discussion on the subject. I appreciate your mature, understated presentation, which is at odds with a lot of TH-cam content! New subscriber here 👍🏻
Yes. It's about content. It's nice to see a chap on TH-cam who doesn't appear to be suffering from ADD. I like the fellow's measured and methodical approach to his presenting. He is a geek of the highest quality as well, and that is a bonus.
I am a bit late to the show as I saw this video now. As usual, a very nice review and a unique perspective on the 4K vs 2K malarkey. Nice to see that you have “Le Man 66” in your collection (One of my favourite guilty pleasures along with films like “Grand Prix” and “overdrive”). Keep up the good work.
And I have 'Grand Prix' and 'Overdrive' too. Both look fabulous on Blu-ray with 'Grand Prix' being just a little extra special owing to its 65mm/70mm origin. John.
I agree with you about HDR. I always amazed by how some people say that 4K HDR version of a movie is oversaturated if you comparing it to the 1080p SDR version. Wrong color; wrong white balance, they say. When I was a kid in 90s, I always watching movies in local cinema on a weekly basis. For me, the richness, the colour that comes from a 4K HDR movie is the closest thing to 35mm celluloid film that I remember. I guess since digital projecting is the new normal since 2010s, people are used to the low contrast, dull color, and clean digital movies.
I thought I'd replied to this Indra so my apologies if this one slipped through the net. Quite a few comments have reappeared in my list as unreplied lately so something appears to be amiss in my TH-cam account. HDR is the closest we've had to the filmic look on video but it does depend on the grader getting it right. It all seems to be a bit variable right now but maybe there will be some sort of accepted standard in the future. How that could be achieved though I really don't know. John.
There is something quite funny about watching a grown man with graying hair say "not something for us adults" about anything else while wearing a Star Wars sweatshirt. I guess like time is relative, some things are relative to the times.
I think you're on to something with this one. I've not watched many 4K discs yet but HDR seems to be the most noticeable difference. The bright areas on "The Rise Of Skywalker" really jumped out the screen when i watched it. The other 4K discs i've watched so far have been underwhelming.
@@alansmithee3336 Thank you Alan. I don't think I'll ever be afflicted with that 'growing up' problem... even though I'm sure a lot of people wish I would! John.
It's amazing how quickly all younger people looking at this will get there 🤔 but you never feel any different. Once a lover of film, your always a lover of film and especially physical media, I still like a decent presentation and no streaming issues 🤗
Having owned many blu rays and 4k blu rays as well as 1080p tv's and 4ktv's I can also give my positive opinions on the two formats: If you have a 4k TV or projector, the blu ray picture upscaling is fantastic. I know most modern movies shown in theaters are mastered in 2k but having them on a 4k cinema projector makes a great difference. 4K blu ray has 2 great features: the 4k image does look much sharper, especially for older film where they went back into the original negative and scanned a new clean 4k picture. HDR is a nice polish to the picture and can make your color depth look incredible.
Thank you for sharing your observations tundraportal. When I did this test I used a standard blu-ray player to test against the 4K but still could not see a perceptible difference (apart from HDR of course) but that's down to our tiny home screens. I think you're exactly right that a cinema projector, particularly on a massive screen, will make the extra sharpness and clarity of the 4K obvious. John.
@@moviecollector5920 If your not seeing any difference between a blu ray player and a 4k player (playing the same blu ray disc on both) then you need a good quality (high end) 4K player. Not all players are created equal, even if they are 4k players. There is absolutely no way a good blu ray player will be as good as a good 4K player, while playing the same blu ray disc. It's just impossible. Until the OPPO players stopped being made, they were the benchmark for 4k, now Panasonic has taken over somewhat, with their £800 - £1000 models. Someone might still be able to get an OPPO 205 for £3000 or so, if their very lucky on ebay. Mine cost £1500 when new and I dread the day i need to replace it. When I buy 4K films and they come with the blu ray disc, I give the blu ray to my mates, as they look rubbish compared too the 4K versions.
@@sirmalus5153 I need a bigger screen. Eight and a half feet wide isn't enough to show the difference and it's the same at cinemas which is why about half of all screens get away with 2K projection and why most videos shown in cinemas today are 2K. A better 4K player will also improve Blu-ray so don't believe all the sales patter, but I will get a better equipped Panny when one of my existing players gives up.
Recently I've seen a few 4K releases where the UHD disc is perceptibly superior to the Blu-ray for definition. That wasn't happening a couple of years ago so it's quite a nice update and a bit of a surprise too after years of only being able to say the 4K is superior due to the High Dynamic Range. John.
Great video John, and very interesting as always! :) I think there is a lot to consider for 4k, like if the movie was transferred from film, or digitally from a 2K DI or native 4K DI, and how much time and effort the studio has put into the mastering, whether the TV, UHD/Blu-ray player has digital upscaling or not, whether it is a digital stream or higher bitrate disk, the screen size and the quality of the TV or projector, and various other factors. Like you say, its diminishing returns vs blu-ray, but I think a lot of the value, as you also mention, are things other than the resolution alone, like HDR, higher peak brightness, wide colour gamut, Atmos soundtrack remastering, etc. Having much more capacity on the disk for more accurate colour and sound data. The difference isn't anywhere near VHS to DVD, or DVD to Blu-ray, and I think that we will be staying with 4K for a very, very long time, virtually no-one has TVs large enough, or rooms large enough to suit an 85"+ TV, for 8K to make a perceptible difference in sharpness and resolution, plus with more content streaming at lower quality I'm sure the online streaming companies are reluctant to consider 8K, and terrestrial TV is still mostly SD and moving to HD at a snails pace, let alone 4K broadcasts.
One of things I had in mind to say - but I did all this in one take so simply missed it - was that one of us enthusiasts needs to purchase a barn, put a 40ft wide screen in it and then compare Blu-ray to UHD Blu-ray because then I think we'd see a perceptible difference. Whatever the outcome, the quality offered for the home video disc today is something I would have thought unobtainable only ten years ago. I had some television people visit in 2008 as they wanted to purchase the rights to something I'd just completed (didn't let them have it though but that's another story) and they summed up television perfectly at that time: "Television is a broken format." I hadn't really thought about it until then but how right they were. The writing is on the wall and as the older generations pass on the increase in the take-up of on-line streaming and video on demand; something that was being looked at years ago by the broadcasters has now been done successfuly by completely new, forward thinking companies.
@@moviecollector5920 I would really love a barn or a garage to turn into a home theatre with a big screen! I think with the cinemas closing again its even more likely that more content will move online, which is a shame as I enjoy watching movies in a cinema environment on a huge screen, and much prefer to own a physical copy of my movie collection, rather than just perpetually paying to rent access to it.
@@nick1635 We may find that after we're out of the Covid-19 problem that people value a trip to the cinema again. Somehow I doubt it given some of the behaviour we've seen but I live in hope. The number of alcoholics in Britain has apparently gone up from something over 4 million to over 8 million since March so maybe owning physical products again will become popular rather than having a house devoid of belongings because you're out all the time and when you're in you simply watch television or spend spare time on social media. After all, enjoying movies in the home is far better for you than drinking yourself to death!!!
@@moviecollector5920 I do hope so! I would miss going to the cinema and taking the family as a treat. I do agree that peoples habits will probably change, maybe there will be fewer multiplexes and more 'boutique' cinemas when things get back to normal, if they ever do. Thats a sad statistic about an increase in alcoholics, I can believe it with the lack of social contact, furloughs, job losses, etc.
Vista vision was used by ILM on the original Star Wars effects and beyond. Also to add to the 2k 4k debate these new disks are quite remarkable when you consider that very few cinemas have HDR projectors (digital) and how many are still running 2k projectors.
I'd been wondering about that Zig so thank you for clarifying. It must cost a fortune for a cinema video projector so I suppose the best the smaller venues can hope for is that a better model comes up for sale second hand. John.
@@moviecollector5920 Not like the old days when you could have a projector for decades and it would still be great. Though they are far more reliable to the point that there really isn't such a thing as a projectionist any more. Which is sad. The new laser projectors that some cinemas are starting to get are HDR as much as I can tell. Great channel. Love your set up. The automation is a lovely touch.
@@ZigUncut I got so jaded with the poor quality video projections that I rarely visit a cinema now unless I know a real film print is being screened. Thankfully 70mm has made a bit of a resurgence in recent years so film hasn't gone completely extinct. Some of the 35mm projectors were around from the 1920s and simply maintained and updated with better lenses and all the modern sound reading and decoding paraphernalia. A projection box used to be such a fascinating, magical place but now they're largely a push button bore. John.
@@moviecollector5920 Also the later, better, emulsions for the films didn't need any upgrade of the projectors. My appreciation goes to Graham Ritchie in NZ who is still keeping an Erneman II projector going at his home cinema and prefers the 35mm prints to any digital copies.
Always gain a lot of information from your vlogs. I now buy the 4K version including the BluRay version. HMV and Zavvi have made my hobby more accessible with their ‘3 for £30’ 4K offers on some great films. I have Gemini Man in 3d as well, and the crypt scenes are actually not darker than the BluRay/4K on my projector.
I don't use Zavvi often... only once and I think that was for the Super 8 4K steelbook so there was no other option than Zavvi. HMV actually have physical shops though and that's why I always use them if I can because I think our towns and cities will be all the poorer if we lose them. After all, there's nothing else these days other than perhaps the odd minor record store dotted about here and there. Maybe ABBA will now regenerate an almost lost industry - well, we can all dream! The 3 for £30 deals have certainly enlarged my 4K collection... but depleted my bank account! John.
And sometimes a DVD will come along and still look amazing. Look at To Catch A Theif on DVD. I swear it looks like a bluray! There's a film that would look amazing on 4k.
Agreed. I saw a DVD titled 'Tommy's Honour' recently and that one was better than many Blu-rays too. Then again, I've just purchased 'Ruthless People' on DVD because I couldn't find it on Blu-ray and it looks dreadful! John.
Terrence Malick's New World offers a pretty exceptional picture on DVD. The question then becomes, "Do I want an exceptional looking DVD I can get used for $1-3 or do I want to spend $25-30 for the Criterion BR with all the bells and whistles? I went with the DVD. If I can get a deal on BR later, fine. But the DVD is more than serviceable.
I can see the HDR on 4K. watch 2001 in 4k and you'll love the shadows that previous discs cannot represent, so they up the brightness to make up for it.
Thank you for that advice. I shall pay attention to it next time I give 2001 a spin. Which could be any day with the number of times I watch that film! John.
I viewed Halloween II on two competing blu-ray discs: the older Universal V. the recent Shout Factory edition. Visually, I found no major (if any) differences in picture quality. The sound, however, was brighter on the Universal version . The dialog and sound effects were clearer on the Universal edition.
I have the Scream Factory edition of Halloween II and it's a nice disc. The colours do seem a little too vibrant for a film supposedly set in October but I don't know the sequel well enough to be categoric. If the colours on the 4K of the 1978 film look the same then I'd say that someone has richened them up a little too much. I do have a copy of it on Super 8 and so when I saw an extract of a 35mm print at the National Film Theatre I was able to see that the look was near identical to the Super 8. John.
The potential for improved sound is well worth a mention in the difference between 4k and bluray. Regardless of any improvement of the image, upgrading from bluray to 4k is worth it alone for the improved soundtrack of The Blues Brothers.
You may be right there Mark The trouble is that high end systems tend to sound so good in home settings (unless you have a darned great hall or barn to use) that it's not always so easy to differentiate. Lesser or budget systems show up differences far more readily. John.
Great topic John. At its best, 4K HDR does trump Blu-ray but there are some transfers where this is certainly not the case, the original Star Wars trilogy is a great example. I've come to the point where I can no longer watch the 4K HDR versions of these classic movies because they just seem so flat and dull (with their highly conservative HDR transfer) and the 4K resolution seems to accentuate the DNR making some scenes look horrible!!! I find the Blu-ray versions much more engaging and enjoyable.
I haven't seen the re-hashes of the original Star Wars since 1997 Shouwn. I don't like all the added in cartooning around the screen but I did think the Death Star attack was fabulous in the re-worked 97 version and would have made a good 400ft Super 8 extract. As it is I only ever watch these films in their original form on Super 8. None of them are the best Super 8 prints ever created but they are good and they are the unmolested, original films. John.
The jump from DVD to Blu-Ray is evident. 4K is amazing, but we aren't all watching them on the same machines and screens, so our vision of these upgraded films aren't all the same. I've watched many 4K films, but I still find Baraka's transfer beyond them all. Shot in 70mm and scanned at 8K. It is incredible on Blu-Ray.
I haven't seen the Blu-ray of Baraka but I've heard quite a bit about it. It's the VistaVision principle David which means that the better the image quality you start with the better then end product even if it's on a lesser format. Murder on the Orient Express is the best video quality I've seen so far. I have seen a couple of 4K's recently that are perceptibly sharper to their Blu-ray equivalents so it's not only High Dynamic Range all the time. John.
Thank you, sir, for another relaxing, thoughtful and measured presentation. You make me smile. Your man-cave is one of the best I have seen. Enjoy yourself with all your wonderful films and your fabulous enthusiasm. You help make the world a more colourful place and that makes me glad.
Thank you Douglas. We moved house just before last Christmas and while I'm not entirely happy with our current setup I'll get it completely sorted eventually. Having said that, I'm never entirely satisfied and I think that's a good way to be as it means I can always find an improvement somewhere. John.
Interesting video. I think (as you alluded to) that a lot of the difference depends on the source material. Films digital shot at 2K can't be anything other than upscaled, whereas those shot on film or 4K+ digital can make the most of a 4K viewing chain. Agreed, HDR is a bonus regardless of the source's resolution. I find web sites that describe whether or not a film is native 4K to be helpful in this respect.
@@moviecollector5920 I didn't know that, and yes that's very useful: thanks for the tip! I was thinking something more along of this: www.digiraw.com/DVD-4K-Bluray-ripping-service/4K-UHD-ripping-service/the-real-or-fake-4K-list/
@@RichTeer My browser won't actually allow me to get to that web site - maybe the anti-virus is throwing a fit about something on there. But I was thinking about IMDB and the origin of the films are under Full Technical Specs. at the bottom of the home page of each film. This will take you to Alien for example: www.imdb.com/title/tt0078748/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec
I'm viewing on a Sony A80J OLED and a Panasonic UB820. The picture is fantastic, there are a lot of variables with equipment which all influence the final image. Settings can make a huge difference, lighting and I even found a damaged cable caused issues. I can second what others have said, sit very close to a 4K TV to view 4K material to see the benefits.
Or blow it up as big as possible with a video projector. I think we need at least 24 feet width to stand a chance of seeing a definite difference though and that corresponds to what is going on in cinemas because half of all studios in the UK are apparently still projecting in 2K. John.
Having used a fairly entry level screen for the last few years, I saw no perceivable difference between 2K and 4K. Having recently upgraded to a much better OLED screen, I can notice an almost imperceptible softness on 2K compared to 4K, although this might even just be the media that I have watched so far. As you've said in this video, the real perceptible difference is HDR.
OLED does produce fabulous imagery but sometimes is enhancing things that perhaps should be enhanced. As televisions go though, they do seem to be the best around today. Keith at Euphoria made an interesting video recently on the steelbook of The Invisible Man which I remember as being a tad dowdy on both my systems but on Keith's OLED he was impressed with it. OLED seems to be making blacks look blacker than film which shouldn't really happen but it has impressed Keith. HDR has made the difference between 4K and 2K but I suspect that if HDR had have been added to Blu-ray then 4K would have been a complete waste of time on our tiny home screens. John.
@@moviecollector5920 LG seems to crush blacks ans Sony to elevate blacks, Panasonic oleds on the other hand seem to have the best balanced black levels and picture. At least that is what I'm reading.
@@pietroscarpa2384 Keith at Euphoria Pictures included what he thinks of Dune in his round-up of what he's watched yesterday. It looked better on his OLED television than it did on my video projector so this does seem to explain why it's so variable. I'll put a link in the description to this video asap. John.
Excellent insight into the realms and totally correct that the HDR can make all the difference. I'm finding similar even with 1080P vs. 4K but that's to be expected (without having a projector of course). Certainly Blu-ray is not to be underestimated but I've witnessed that's also the case for streaming today what with the really advanced compression codecs being used and decent equipment when combined with decent available bandwidth, I've certainly seen some superb quality streamed via the likes of Netflix that is almost comparable to disc and of which has now become affordable. All of this though is of likely credit due to the incredible upscaling technology that has got exceedingly good. It's just sad that Cinema is taking a direct hit at the moment but I guess we've been through this before beyond and out of those early eighties and the fun we had with that horrible videotape!
I've become increasingly disinterested in streaming Mike. I do still enjoy watching TH-cam on our television but that's a little different. The quality of the discs we're enjoying lately has just knocked on-line into a cocked hat as far as I'm concerned but I will always listen to your insights on the subject. Can't beat having the physical product and know it's always there on the shelf whenever you're ready to take another look.
i find that 1080p holds up quite well to about 60 inches but at about 85 inches it really gets stretched too far and 4K clearly and obviously restores that nice crisp HD look. I can still easily watch 1080p on 135 inch projector though. Other image quality factors are more important like brightness, contrast and colors.
I don't actually know how wide 60 inches is David but probably about four feet which isn't very big. It seems that tellies show up the differences more than video projection judging by what you're saying. I'm currently projecting ten feet wide but I can't tell you what that is in television measurements other than it's got to be somewhat bigger than 135 inches. The perceptible difference I pick up on is HDR but even that can be difficult to perceive because some Blu-rays are so good. I think I made this video about three years ago but I'm still checking just about every 4K I watch against the Blu-ray. I never watch on a telly though other than to occasionally check a detail for a review. I haven't watched movies on a telly for about 18 years now which is when affordable home video projection became just about good enough. John.
I think you need at least a 65" TV to really appreciate the difference in resolution. And even then, it depends on the transfer and the way it is filmed. A movie like Blade Runner really pops because, in addition to being a very high-quality source and excellent 4k scan, it has a lot of fine detail. Those tiny little windows in the giant buildings when you see the cityscape are much better defined in 4K. Especially since they were practical effects being filmed. It's not as impressive with CGI since CGI is only processed at 2K currently. All that said, it really is the color, sound and HDR that justifies the format the most.
Blade Runner is a great 4K disc. One of the top 35mm transfers I think and I should take another look at it. Well, you've given me an excuse now. It's easier to see the differences in image quality the bigger you go, that's for sure. Maybe if we can resurrect the BFCC we can really put the whole 2K vs. 4K to bed by doing direct comparisons on the 24ft wide screen. Alternatively we can hire the BFI IMAX and project them at 90 feet wide. John.
Another thing that comes into play is what the Blu-ray player and the TV is doing. I have a DVD with Gandhi by Attenborough and played on a Panasonic 4k player with a Samsung OLED TV it looks like a Blu-ray. Both those devices have digital signal processors and who knows what they are up to. Some clever autocorrelation?
All our systems are different and that's something that became increasingly apparent in the four years since this video. Tellies don't make the results as obvious as projection for obvious reasons but even so, you'll still find different results in different combinations of player and telly. John.
I noticed Interstellar 4K had this less sharp almost out of focus/smudgy quality that made it look like real life and not a simulacrum. Blu ray is very sharp but have noticed the micro contrast and detail on 4K to be jaw dropping at times. That said a decent blu ray is enough for most people. Has anyone done a ranking of best DVD/blu ray/4K transfers? A sort of Premier league table? It’s only fair to reward studios that actually bother to take the time to do it right. Jaws 4K is absolutely incredible btw.
Now that mention the best DVDs Mr. Holocaust, there are some amazing quality DVDs coming out these days. I saw a little known film called 'Tommy's Honour' on DVD a few months ago and it was like many Blu-rays. Agree about Jaws in 4K. A fabulous video transfer. John.
I was revisiting this video and I agree bluray can be good enough for all but the smallest subgroup of viewers. If they had HDR like you discussed, I am unsure 4K would be a thing for home consumers. With a well encoded Blu-ray at proper viewing distances the resolution bump to 4K would be very difficult to discern for the majority of people. Even at larger screen sizes, you should be further away so it doesn’t become too much of a screen size issue. Now if you are sitting so close that you can’t take in the whole picture on screen, then. That’s a different story.
I still don't think we'd be able to discern a difference most of the time Robert. I think I underestimated the quality of Blu-ray and making this video almost four years ago opened my eyes. However, put a 4K disc on a 24ft wide 'Scope screen and then compare it to the Blu-ray and we might see a whole different picture. Know anyone with a 24ft wide screen?.... oh yes, I have one sitting in the cupboard here. Maybe when we do another BFCC I should make the time within the programme for the day to do a 4K vs. 2K (ish) comparison on it. Thank you for looking at this video again and leaving a comment. It does still seem to get watched a bit so maybe it's a subject I should re-visit one day. John.
John, I have a nice 4K theater with a 150 inch 2.35 screen. The key point is that my Panasonic 4K blu ray player up Reese’s 1080p to 4K. This makes Blu Rays appear almost as good as native 4K discs. As movie fans, it’s a good time. Thanks for your great work.
Is that 150 inches wide or a diagonal measurement Robert. Come on, get your tape measure out!!! I did compare a lot of these 4K discs against the Blu-ray playing in a standard 1080p player and it was still difficult to discern the difference. One day I'll give it all a try on my 10 foot wide drop down screen which may be sizeable enough to make any difference more obvious. I think one of us needs a barn with a 40 foot screen installed just to complete this exercise once and for all.
@@moviecollector5920 Hi John, 150" diagonal screen about 135" wide including the frame. I've switched from a 1.78 to 2.35 - an expensive mistake resulting in a brand new Stewart screen languishing in my spare bedroom. On the difference I think the UHD has more impact than the resolution. of course, the source material is the most important. Just bought the Blu-ray of the old British science fiction classic - The Day The Earth Caught Fire - very excited!
Interesting fact for you. In "The Dark Knight" again a Nolan film. Really the first film to use IMAX for regular cinema they had run out of IMAX cameras to use on set. Lots of his scenes are completely live and real in camera so you have to capture it from many angles more often than not. The scene where they flipped the truck they actual used IMAX cameras and Vista Vision cameras along side them to get enough coverage. I personally can't see the difference even having seeing it on IMAX 3 times. I think Vista Vision and IMAX intercut very nicely.
Yes, VistaVision is outstanding in its own right. If you saw Dark Knight at one of the four genuine IMAX theatres and it looked about as good as IMAX then that shows how good it is. Bradford, Manchester, London Waterloo and London Science Museum although I'm told just the two London theatres screen genuine IMAX now... not sure I can believe that! John.
@@moviecollector5920 Hi John , I actually viewed The Dark knight in 2008 in IMAX at Manchester , if i recall it was the only movie to be shown in IMAX at the timewith a really limited number of viewings (had to prebook) , all I can say was WOW , 13 years later I can still remember it was breath taking , the sharpness of the image on that kind of resolution/screen size was really unreal , they were only a couple of true IMAX scenes , the truck flip being one of them..
@@QFilmz That would have been one of the first mainstream films to include a section of genuine IMAX. Superman Returns had a few in 2006 and although it was spectacular the sequences in question were in 3D so a lot of the impact of the 70mm IMAX image clarity was lost. Someone has told me that the Manchester IMAX is no longer screening film so you'll need to check that before you set out to see another film there. If it's video only then it's probably not worth it yet but video cameras and projection are improving all the time. Give it another few years and we may be getting IMAX film quality from video... just not for a while yet and then there's the expensive projectors to swap out too so thinking about it, it may be a while.
From my understanding 4K isn't really 4K if we base the resolution from earlier years when it was called 720p, 1080p etc. I mean 4K in height is just the double of 1080p 2160p. In reality it's just 2K but that doesn't sound that cool. So 4K feels just like a PR move by the companies to make the consumer think it's four times better. Compare the resolution alone I see a very small difference. For me the big difference is HDR and Dolby Vision.
I’d disagree it’s absolutely not a PR move. Remember that your tv and player are up scaling the 1080p to 2160p. I absolutely agree that HDR is extremely important but with a good oled tv and a solid 4k player a well mastered 4k DI disc blows hd out of the water.
@@MistaFussichannel Yeah but what I mean is that 4K might imply the height is 4000 pixels like 1080 is 1080 pixels in height. Which I thought when I first heard the 4K label. Then to label it 2K doesn't sell the picture upgrade as well to the masses as if you label i 4K.
It depends, I normally would say yes, you can see a difference. Whether the presentation is better depends also ony personal taste. And the biggest factor is also the ratio of screen size and viewing distance.
And I also think Stefan, that the bigger the screen the easier it will be to gell the difference. Once I've got a 30 foot wide screen in my home I'll be able to give better informed opinions of each release. First I just need a much bigger home! John.
I’ve got a good 4k Samsung TV and it upscales my Blu-rays beautifully. From what I’ve seen of 4k even with HDR I won’t be making an upgrade anytime soon.
I think 77 inches is about five feet wide in reality. What I'd like to do is project a direct comparison 24 feet wide on the BFCC CinemaScope screen. If we can resurrect the BFCC and get a 4K projector capable of that size there then we'll all be able to find out once and for all how well Blu-ray stands up. It will be a lot of fun to do it so keep your fingers crossed. John.
I don’t get it, why would the screen size matter if the view distance ratio remains consistent. Are you getting so close that you are viewing content outside your effective field of view?
Blu-ray is 1080P 4:4:4 while UHD is 2160 4:2:0 which in effect means UHD has double the resolution for luminance both horizontally and vertically while colour is exactly the same colour resolution for both. But I find its the variable compression that makes the most difference, that varies film to film.
Greetings. At last; an educated man. You are 100% right, sir. The tag '4K' is the biggest scam since sliced bread! It´s a way of - once again - trying to sell..sell..SELL!!! The '4K'-resolution is not "four times better"! In practice the difference in picture quality (for most people) is impossible to see with the naked eye. First of all, the term itself ('4K') is misleading/lying. That term refers to the theoretical horizontal resolution of 3840 pixels. A Blu-ray disc offers a horizontal resolution of 1920 pixels. In other words: The "four times better" resolution-scam is in reality TWICE the resolution - not(!) four. Secondly, the false ads and lies (hence) compares apples with oranges. As mentioned the term '4K' refers to the h-o-r-i-z-o-n-t-a-l resolution, okay. But when it comes to Blu-ray, the false ads and lies compare it to the v-e-r-t-i-c-a-l resolution 1080 pixels - NOT the horizontal resolution! If one is doing a technical comparison = do it right. Further details/explanation: "A 4K Blu-ray disc has a resolution of 3840 x 2160 pixels - 3840 pixels on the width and 2160 pixels on the height. In fact, the word “Ultra HD Blu-ray” would be more accurate than “4K Blu-ray”. “4K” is more like a word for propaganda purposes because 3840 pixels do not reach 4000 pixels." Conclusion: Get yourself a Class A Blu-ray player and a Class A 50 to 65 inch tv. Calibrate them both professionally (take your t-i-m-e with it) and you are set for life! It is not just about the "resolution" when it comes to getting the most film-like experience in your home. I myself go for correct color schemes, OAR, correct black levels, etc. Stop buying into the liars selling points. They only want our hard earned dough! Keep up the good work with this channel. Splendid job! Sincerely.
@@MrChiffre Well it is technically four times the info since its from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 (yeah - not the full 4096 either), but the drop from 4:4:4 to 4:2:0 leaves the luminance at 4k but the colour is 1080p. I agree it is a bit of a con, adding HDR helps and increasing colour depth helps but I suspect the elephant in the room is the variable compression, on a blu-ray there were scenes with facial closeups for example, on one I could clearly see each hair stubble, on another it was blurred, I wonder if burning a blu-ray to a 100gb UHD disk would get the same improvement in picture? Whatever though, as someone said on a projector thread "don't worry your already living the dream" regarding the discussion on equipment, he was right and I do enjoy sitting back with a 72" screen and my current equipment :)
@@MrEddieLomax Greetings..missster Loomax...! I thank you for ihre reply. I am no mathematician nor am I Einstein, but I still can´t get it into my thick skull how it can be "four times" (commercial lies) the resolution?:/ The Companys that make these..thingsss..shouldn´t read pixels and lines of resolution any way they please, should they?! It should be either vertical or horizontal alike, in my opinion. I will not falter. I will not yield. Read; no fake "upgrading" for me. LONG LIVE BD (and in some cases, DVD)!! Sincerely:)
@@MrChiffre Its four times the resolution (or bandwidth) since is twice the width and also twice the height. I must admit I used to think 2k -> 4k was a doubling but the height needs to be taken care of. I work on SDI video which is sent down single wire BNC cables, a 1920x1080P 60 frames a second video can be sent down a 3Gbps (3G-SDI) cable, but a 4k res like 3840x2160P60 requires a 12Gbps link (we also see it transmitted often with 4 * 3G cables in the past to get the long range). Whats crazy now is we can send the 12G signal over 100m with the latest chips, HDMI struggles beyond 10m :) But HDMI has bi-directional communications - SDI is one way...
My 2 pence worth, and this applies to physical discs, not streaming or TV! Overall for a casual viewer up to a 50" screen I would say not worth upgrading unless the price is close. For me(without a HDR display) there is a noticeable image sharpness, but only in long range shots etc. Also, a new, mostly part digital film will barely show any difference between 1080p and 2160p. I applaud the 4k/UHD upgrade that film companies apply to a 1080p film as I find them as impressive(especially older films) even compared to a native 4K shoot from Columbia Pictures. There are many things I could go on about when talking about Blu-ray and on-demand film quality...........
Only one of three cinemas currently capable of projecting IMAX in the UK today. Andy at Electricgeek took a trip from Scotland to Manchester to see OPPENHEIMER there and shot a video of his adventure which is up on TH-cam and worth a look. Bradford will be putting IMAX back in when it re-opens apparently so we'll have four IMAX cinemas then. John.
Thanks I'll give that a watch. It's actually my local cinema so I was lucky enough to see Oppenheimer and also Dunkirk if I remember correctly in 70mm. Not my favourite movies of all time or anything but a fantastic experience. Got a real sense of vertigo from the dogfighting scenes in Dunkirk which has to be a good sign!
@@retromuel INTERSTELLAR is the ultimate cinema movie providing you see it in genuine IMAX and not one of the faux IMAX video projection cinemas. TENET is the most impressive image quality but it's a close call between that and DUNKIRK. John.
I prefer 2K BD mainly for the fact they release the new 4K restorations of films on 2K BDs anyway after the UHD releases or as a bonus disc. Also 2K just has a much larger catalogue of films and TV shows. Until 4K HDR OLED TVs becomes a lot more affordable I'll stick to 2K BD
Blu-ray is amazing and I underestimated it until the 4K discs came along. But 4K is better due to HDR... not always, but most of the time. Best way to enjoy either format is with a 4K video projector onto a white wall as big as you can get it. John.
I’m surprised you set the Panasonic to bright environment. This in my experience is the least accurate option and leads to washed out colours. Standard is perfect in a dark room in my opinion. Seems to be the most accurate. Great videos though!
It varies from disc to disc. I think Spider-Man is the one I've set lowest of all but a lot of them have to go on Light Environment so that the image isn't too blown out. Most do seem to be best on Bright although all our systems are different and what works best on one will not be the same on another. John.
Most of the DVD/Blu-ray dealers had gone out of business by the time of that Rover 75 production Jer so I didn't have much opportunity to sell it but it went pretty well irrespective of that from my own TriumphDVD site. That's all pretty much at an end now. The end was coming but the Covid-19 pandemic finished it off. It finished off everything I did but if it hadn't I certainly wouldn't have decided to start this movie channel so it wasn't all bad. I just finished the last ever disc production in October so now I've done everything I promised certain people and car clubs I would do it's time to sort out what I'll be doing next. It will be difficult to keep this channel going without any income at all so I'll have to come up with something. Good luck with your own channel. I think I'm your 13th subscriber. John.
@@moviecollector5920 Thanks John for the sub (very much appreciated) and for all the information on the Rover 75 production, it's a shame with what happened with the COVID pandemic but at least you started this channel which is great and from your channel I found Trevor's, so not all bad. All the best for the future and I look forward to seeing your next video. Jer
Agree, people were expecting the kinda leap that was DVD to blu ray well IMHO anyway. Some 4K have really impressed me, eg , Ad Astra, 1917, Mortal engines, TENET,Jaws and Spartacus and especially Logan !( Brilliant ). But what has most impressed me about my New UHD player and Oled is upscaled blu ray HD 1080. 60% plus blu ray upscaled is so good no need to go 4k unless it's a great transfer. So I've got 500-550 blu rays but so far only 60 4k as it would be madness and an unnecessary waste of money to replace them all. PS enjoying your channel 👍
That's a good summary. I tested my standard Blu-ray player against upscaled Blu-ray and there was little or no perceptible difference there either. A test I will do again some time in the future. At the time of this test I think the 'Murder on the Orient Express' Blu-ray was better than any of the 4K discs I had at the time, other than 'Murder on the Orient Express' of course. It's still the best but 'Tenet' came pretty close. '1917' is very good too but sometimes too obviously manipulated video rather than film which marks it down a notch or two for me. Most of the time though, '1917' is exceptional. John.
On Panasonic UHD players, specify in settings what type of screen you have. . then the question is whether the screen you have actually has sufficient brightness for HDR
I'll take a look for that Anders. I didn't ever see it before and I was back and forth in there to ensure the setup was as close to film as possible. Don't know what an answer of "white wall" would do to the poor machine! John.
A difference yes but if you know the movie well . Not sure I'd notice a difference beetween a Iron Man 4k or 2k but I can see it with 2001 , The Shinning ,Interstellar , Blade Runner ...
That's in a video I made last year about the ten best movies shot on video on 4K. It wasn't all shot on video but I included it anyway because it's so good all the way through. Best 4K to date is still Murder on the Orient Express owing to its modern, fine grain 65mm film stock. Still nothing matches large format film so anything released 70mm or genuine 15/70 IMAX are the top 4K releases. Top Gun: Maverick is very good though and that was shot entirely on video. John.
I watch 4K content on a 55 inch OLED from 9 feet away. There is a difference in resolution alone. 4K adds what I can only describe as a sharpness to the picture. It’s not the jump from SD to HD, but it is noticeable. However, when combined with HDR and HFR, the level of realism is just stunning.
I think it's just that we're unlikely to see a remarkable difference between HD and UHD on our tiny home screens. If we can get the BFCC resurrected after the pandemic then the plan is to test 4K against Blu-ray on the 24 foot wide BFCC screen. If that doesn't make the difference obvious then we'd better hire the Odeon Leicester Square instead!
There is a difference and you can definitely see it!!! Especially as your TVs get larger under 42 inches it’s hard to see the difference but once you start getting into 50 and above you can see the difference.
I'm currently at 9 feet wide Michael but I estimate about 25 feet might make it obvious. I don't think a big enough telly exists... well, not for home use anyway. John.
Love your reviews and insights! I personally am seeing the difference in sharpness in 4ks over 2k bluerays. Bluerays tend to look soft, and of course the HDR colour. One issue that most people forget or don't think I about is the quality of our eyes at the viewing distance. So what I did was get a custom set of glasses cut for the distance I watch my 65" oled tv. I watch at about 2.25 .metres away and got the optom to maximise viewing clarity for this viewing distance, instead of far or short distances. Amazing how you can see the quality difference by upgrading your eyes. Just make sure you get a pair that are large enough to cover your periferal and does not have any blue light or coatings that filter the light. Worked for me :)
Thanks for that NIck. I have an eye test coming up so that may tell me something. Last time I was 20/10 but that was two years ago now and I know my close-up vision has gone a little. I think what is possibly happening on my system is that the image is so sharp on the video projector that any shortcomings are disguised (not quite the same on my 40 inch television as it's simply too small). But if I were to project two identical systems next to each other on the same sized screen I would see the difference, although it would be small. Similarly, a 30 foot wide screen would surely illustrate the extra detail of a genuine 4K disc. On the other hand, Murder On The Orient Express is so good that it may still be impossible to tell. HDR is the main difference on our tiny home screens and I suppose that's one reason why HDR has not been applied to Blu-ray.
Thank you for saying so. My conclusions are still the same today as they were when I recorded this video and it's HDR that makes the difference... in the absence of a 25 foot screen! John.
If one had the necessary equipment such as a 35mm projector and a few reels of 35mm prints, a 4k vs 35mm film would make a good video. Even a 35mm filmstrip projector and a few still frames of a 4k bluray disc could be used to make the comparison.
To some extent, I would imagine the ability of a projector to focus would be a limiting factor. My home theatre projector is an older 1080p model, midrange at the time (though still several times the size of an office projector), and I'm pretty sure that I'm not even seeing a true 1080p image without being able to get perfect focus (a combination of uneven focus due to lens shift, and the limitations of my eyesight to judge focus on the distant screen while standing next to the projector, and perhaps the quality of the optics). So even if my projector had a 4K display element, it wouldn't make any difference due to the imperfect focus. But on a newer and more expensive projector, I'm sure it would matter more. It's interesting to see the debate about 4K versus HDR in the film world, because there's a similar debate in the gaming space. In gaming, higher resolutions mean lower framerates, and unlike in film, there is nothing desirable about lower framerates in games. So there is a debate over, what look better, 4K with standard dynamic range, or 1440p (2560x1440) with high dynamic range? And many people argue that the impact of good HDR is a much bigger difference than the diminishing returns of higher resolutions.
I hear what you're saying about focusing from distance Adam because at the British Film Collectors Conventions we were often about 40 yards from the screen and we needed binoculars. Sounds ridiculous, but true. Our Optoma projector is now three years old but it astounds me how quickly home video projection moved on and got to the current level. Quite amazing. Gaming has had a significant impact on the film industry - probably not always the most desirable impact in some respects but the gaming industry is another things that has moved on so quickly. I would have loved some of these near real life games when I was young but sadly I ran out of time to play any of them about 30 years ago and haven't touched any ever since. John.
Great video as always John. Here is something I have often wondered, if you have a film that was only released on DVD, is it better to watch it on a BluRay player that has 4k enhancing or to watch it on a 4k bluray player. I have the directors cut/special edition of Star Trek The Motion Picture, only on DVD. On my old Panasonic BluRay, looks great. When I watched on a 4k player, looked dreadful. Therefore is it better to keep a DVD player, BluRay and a 4k BluRay?
Well I've kept them all Gary. One point I can't remember if I included in the 4K vs. Blu-ray/2K video is that all systems vary and what looks exceptional on one may not like quite the same on another. Always minimize or turn off any digital trickery such as 'Sharpen' and that may stop messing the image up on certain discs. Other than that, run the disc via whichever player it looks best on. I have the Marketing Films 3x400ft Super 8 cut down of Star Trek The Motion Picture. And I was just thinking tonight (while watching episode 7 of Star Trek Picard on Blu-ray) how I would handle a Star Trek retrospective review and that Super 8 print would show up as would the original Enterprise being restored at the International Air & Space Museum back in 2016 cos' guess who was there with a video camera and managed to get access?!? John.
@@moviecollector5920 Ha. Excellent John. I am a massive sci fi fan and I have a picture of me in Matt Smith's/Calpadi's tardis console room, so I understand your joy of seeing the Enterprise. Thanks for that explanation on the differing tech and pros and cons of all. Very useful. Appreciated.
I've recently started double dipping some of my favourite films from my Blu Ray copies to the 4K copies and they look and sound so much better. The Picture Quality is outstanding! From 1080p to 4K, I can really notice the difference. 1080p is still excellent, but 4K is superior in every way.
That's HDR Cooper. If it were applied to standard Blu-ray they'd never have been able to sell the 4K format so that's why it was done. Unless there's a fundamental change I expect this is about as far as home video can be taken. The sound is usually identical unless there has been a remix into a later sound format such as Dolby Atmos. John.
I decided to buy blu rays more and not 4k movies since my tv is a 55 inch 4k hdr and i can use the hdr to watch blu rays and sometimes the picture looks better plus i have noticed the bit rate on blu rays have come down less than 30 mbps over the last few years.
Thank you for watching so many of my videos Andrew. I am a much bigger fan of Blu-ray discs than I was thanks to looking at so many of them for this comparison video. 4K is marketed as the format of excellence but the truth is that much of the time you'd be hard pushed to tell the difference between a 4K disc and a 2K Blu-ray. John.
Not jut the HDR, but the resolution is a huge difference, even on "just" a 55". Watching a good quality 4k transfer, stuff just pops off the screen unlike anything I've ever seen on standard 1080p.
Glad it works on your system Jay. I must try our ten foot wide screen to give it a more thorough comparison. Hopefully we'll resurrect the BFCC after the virus is dealt with so we can do the same test on the 24 foot wide screen. John.
Even before seeing this, I had decided that I would buy 4k's if A: I didn't own the film on 1080p and really wanted it in my collection and B: if either the price was right (so waiting, with ice in my belly) or if the need to own was so great as to not care about cost, or C: if a reliable source said it was a must-own and the film was good.. I will joyfully keep watching my Blu-ray's and buy 4k's of things which I simply must have on that format.
That is pretty much what I was doing until starting this channel and people started asking me to review films I'd already purchased previously on other formats. It's a good way to collect without spending way too much. John.
Another great review/comparison thank you. Clearly subjective though depending on equipment, settings, ones own colour balance and of course preference. I think the only reference is possibly something you mentioned in another review(s), and that is, 'as the director intended'. Interestingly, the 4K update of A Fistful of Dollars from Kino Lorber and the other two in the series don't use HDR, but they are very well done regardless with clear improvements. That said, I shown a family member 2014 & 2017 Blu-Ray versions of this film with horrible green & blue filter tints in that order, along with poor'ish lighting and what could be mistaken for a DVD, against the new crisp 4K release with clear blue skies, very good lighting and definition. They preferred the 2017 version -- go figure! 🤪
Several comments have praised the Dollars films on 4K on here which is quite surprising given the TechniScope origin. The 'TechniScope' name was a way of disguising the inferior 35mm format that was used which was half of normal 35mm. It probably illustrates how good film was and is that the 4K video discs are held in such high regard from such comparatively low quality shoots. It must have saved quite a bit of money though only using half the negative film stock so given who and where they were made, it's understandable. Imagine how they could have looked if shot full frame 'Scope 35mm. And you're right, all our equipment is different and will give slightly differing results. My tests did prove to me that there was little difference between 4K and 2K/Blu-ray and that difference was HDR. Now The Others has been released without HDR and still the 4K is perceptibly superior it's brought my conclusion from three years ago into question. I am using a different video projector most of the time now though. John.
In the Dollar 'The Man With No Name' Kino Lorber 4K trilogy, they apparently painstakingly colour balanced frame-by-frame. Do you think perhaps this might be considered a Manual HDR, or MHDR (heard it here first 😅)? A video from you on what is HDR, could be interesting?@@moviecollector5920
Don't feel compelled to buy anything Bob please. My car documentaries are a bit in-depth so they're not for everyone but take a look at www.triumphdvd.co.uk and have a look at the preview on there. That might be enough as many of the interviewees are included along with plenty of looks at the cars. Tomorrow it's British Leyland day at Gaydon so guess where I'll be? John.
Great video. Unfortunately I’m not versed in film and 35mm ect, it is something I would like to learn more about. Am I right in thinking 8k would be the closest to 35mm quality? Or is it the HDR Colour that gets us closer to 35mm? I have a BenQ projector and watching First Blood was magnificent, the HDR makes it night and day vs the Blu Ray.
I remember you getting the projector Danny. 35mm is estimated at about 6K I think but film is random grain so it's probably higher quality than that in reality. Negative stock would be a lot higher. Equivalence between video and film is difficult and it's all down to perceptions really. In that regard a home screen is going to look similar irrespective of 35mm film or video because we just don't have the room for big enough screens. I did mean to suggest that one of us needs to purchase a barn and stick a 40 foot screen in it just so we can really put all the different formats to the test but I forgot to say it. It is the HDR that makes the 4K discs superior (assuming it's been done correctly that is) and with that more lifelike colour it does make video look more like a film print. On home screens it is very close now between film and video.
@@moviecollector5920 Hi, and thanks for the videos, which I'm watching with interest. If 8k ever becomes a thing, with reasonable content availability, I would intend to upscale/double up to a 30ft diagonal. OK, not huge by commercial standards, but I'm blown away by my existing setup so Ive no doubt 4x screen area would be even more life affirming.
@@timalanthwaite4759 We do have a 24ft screen for the BFCC so if we can resurrect the film collectors conventions then I plan to put 4K to the test on that and see how it fares against Blu-ray. If that day ever comes then we will then all know if there is any merit to a home system of more than 4K. But if you do manage to get a 30ft setup in the meantime, I'm coming over!!! John.
@@moviecollector5920 And you'd be very welcome. Other than Widebottom Weekend I don't get out much, but would love to side by side film and video resolutions. Regards, Tim
I'm not completely sold on 4k yet, some movies I've seen look no better than the 2k version. Sometimes I feel the studio is just re - packaging a 2k movie in 4k package. I remember when DVD went mainstream back in '97, I thought it was incredible, then Blu ray hit the market after beating out hddvd, and Blu ray was a significant improvement over DVD, you didn't have to look that hard to see the difference... I was expecting to see that type of obvious difference going from Blu ray to 4k but not so imo. Some movies yes, they look quiet a bit better than Blu ray but many the difference is very subtle. So now I watch reviews from channels like this one before I buy. Maybe I bought into the over hype of 4k. Now one more thing I do notice is that Blu ray up converted to 4k looks really good on my projector!
Blu-ray was much better than we all though prior to 4K and now with the way films are mastered into 4K, the Blu-ray using the same master has been proven to be almost as good. HDR is often the only persceptible difference. And you're right about the studios upscaling 2K video because most special effects laden movies do just that. I actually tested from a standard Blu-ray player in this video and on a home screen the difference is still imperceptible - or almost imperceptible - at times. I need a 30 foot wide screen! A lot of DVDs back in 1997 and 1998 were copies of the LaserDisc masters so they weren't all as good as they could have been. John.
I've been to TV stores so that statement I can say is completely wrong. images from 4K look much more natural. the grass. the skin. the tile. It is the irregularities in your skin that make your skin look natural. The details of your skin that you do not see on a 1080p TV
A good test for seeing if your player/tv combo is 'up too snuff', is the cavern night club scene in SERENITY. If the picture is dark and hard to pick out details in the background, you need a better player and tv most likely. This scene was dark on several combo's, until i got myself a Sony AF8 OLED and an OPPO 205 4K player (playing the blu ray disc) Only then did this scene show properly. Another good test is the film ZULU on blu ray. If the faces of the actors look plasticky and false, you need to upgrade your player and tv combo. The faces now look natural on my OPPO and SONY.
Well I don't have Serenity but I have Zulu and the Super Technirama photography puts most 4K releases to shame. No plastic here. Many films should be too dark to see into the shadows - you're supposed to be peering into them. Apocalypse Now is the perfect example but I obviously don't know about Serenity having never seen it. I've no doubt my systems would be too dark for that scene you mention because I set them up to replicate film as closely as possible and that really means they're darker than most people would have them set. John.
@@moviecollector5920 That scene I mentioned in SERENITY, is really dark overall on other tv/player combo's. So much so it is really distracting not to be able to 'see' the actors properly, let alone the background of the cavern they are supposedly in. The scene was actually spoiling the film for a mate of mine, who is very fussy with things like that. He even thought the disc had a production fault on it at one point. Not untill he saw the scene on my set up did he relax and start saving for better equipment, rather than sell the disc in the hope a better version would come out one day. With my OPPO player, it even looked good on an old Panasonic PLASMA 37" I used to use (and keep as a spare tv) TV's and players are NOT created equal, I have come to learn and you do get what you pay for, sadly for my pocket!!.
@@sirmalus5153 That's certainly food for thought Sir Malus. One thing is for sure though, videos being released today are better than when it all started with VHS years ago. Although I never really liked the low quality it was amazing to be able to purchase a complete movie so cheaply to keep and watch again and again. What I think I'm saying is that we're almost expecting too much at times today. Modern video quality is amazing and I never would have thought it would be possible to be able to project a home video in such quality in the home. Now then, you'll have to check out The Hunt For Red October on 4K disc because that one is so dark that the only reason we know Sean Connery is in it is because we can hear him! John.
Thank you for your very concise analysis of the 2K v 4K issue, and for mentioning - without entirely relying upon - the Your Mileage May Vary aspects when comparing peoples' home theatre setups. Soulds like it'll be 4K HDR where available.
It's over two years since I looked at Speed but fortunately I did put a review up of that disc. I can't recall exactly but I'm pretty sure the 4K is better than the Blu-ray and it damned well should be as it has the all-important HDR which is what makes a video look more like film. Take a look at my review before buying though. John.
I've been collecting horror films, and what I've found is that it's probably the worst return for experience. Yes there are super clear images, but some are way too clear. You start noticing more flaws that used to be covered by lower quality transfers. Some other ones just feel off with how clean they are. For example night of the living dead 4k by criterion is a great remaster. Though in terms of atmosphere I kinda miss my artifacts where I was watching something that was dragged through a gravel road. Those older ones felt like you were watching something old and historic. The remaster is so clean all me and my friend could comment on is how it looked like it was just filmed with modern equipment. It lacked a lot of the old home movie feel. Some Scream Factor 4ks like the friday the 13th have similar issues. Removing too much film sound just makes it too sterile. Modern and Special Effects, action films I think benefit well from hires more than older lower budget films I guess is what I see.
That's a good summary. Personally I like a film to look like a film and Night of the Living Dead in particular is a great Super 8 feature simply because it suits the gritty look of the print that was evidently used as master material. But going back to the camera negative for many films will make them look cleaner and more like a modern video production simply because prints were not struck from the original camera negative (apart from premiere house prints and 70mm blow-ups) so they will look cleaner due to them being a first generation copy. Mass 35mm prints are struck from the internegative which itself is taken from the interpositive. The interpositive is struck from the camera negative and used for colour grading etc. so you can see that a lot of potential film grain was introduced via this process. Go back to the camera negative and it's virtually eliminated. Sometimes it's not possible though because the negative has long gone or it's faded and perished beyond viable use. John.
@@moviecollector5920 My mom's cousins used to own a drive in theater outside of Pittsburgh. I was 9 by the the time they closed. Really regret not keeping any of the 35mm reels, but 9 year old me lacked foresight or space. They kept their copy of Night of the living dead and Dawn of the Dead though since they were extras in them. They used to show them double feature every October. I know that even for original mass 35 prints they were rough from being played for like 30 years, and had some patches from film tares; but it really was a different experience as a kid watching a horror film outdoors on a big screen around where it was filmed. I am thankful to have experienced it though because there are few people around my age who would get that experience; as their only experience had been home video transfers. I also think about how unique it is now. Like the film patch's and poops were unique to my first experience of the film and audio quality from the car stereo just will make it different from anyone else's experience who had seen a theater 35mm version. I do greatly appreciate the work done by Criterion. When you've seen nearly every transfer of a film it really becomes apparent how much work they put into restoring films. Though like I said it suffers from a digital sterile feel that makes it too modern. The best home video experience I feel is the 40th anniversary DVD. Aspects and noise kept in make if feel more like it's how he intended it to be viewed. Though Romero also supervised the early Criterion transfer despite passing before it's release. The 40th is leagues above the 30th anniversary edition that Russo oversaw which was originally for VHS rather than DVD and had really bad extra scenes put in. The 40th though doesn't have those garbage scenes in it, and took advantage of the DVD formats quality. Not to mention it has so much extra features which is sorely missed on modern bluray and 4k. Really I think it's sad that many blu ray and 4k will spout special features on their cover, but what they mean is the bare minimum of an audio commentary and maybe the theatrical trailer. I can't think of many films that include a documentary that has about the same runtime as the film.
@@hardcorehunter7162 Now I'm going to have to find a copy of that 40th anniversary edition because I completely missed it! Film splices, negative dust, specks of dirt and the odd scratch are all a part of film. But I did always appreciate seeing the premiere run prints taken from the negative that we used to enjoy at the top London cinemas. I think I got a bit spoilt there but I never went off Super 8 which because of its miniature size makes any bit of dust look massive upon projection. Any scratches are also enhanced due to the small size and the magnification once it's up there on the screen. It's all part of the fun though really. We didn't really ever have drive-in theatres over here. The weather tends to rule out things like that. I did screen Night of the Living Dead in the garden about 20 years ago though and that was creepy. John.
@@moviecollector5920 Thankfully they're not that rare, and can be found for under $10 on ebay. Drive In's are a fun experience, just harder to find these days. There are still enough in my area probably one every 45 miles. Though there are many states where they've gone extinct. Weather around pittsburgh isn't really ideal for outdoor theaters, but I guess everyone just got used to it. It's in the top 5 cities in the country for gloomy weather. It's a pretty common saying here rain or shine because I guess a lot of people from out of the area think things get canceled when it rains.
I need to ask what type of television set you are using to look at these discs on. Do you have a 4K television set? Most of us do not of course so I don’t know that we would get the full affect of a 4K disc and of course we would have to buy a 4K DVD player and they may not all be equal so perhaps you can address both of these issues for us. Like the rest of your fans I really likeYour presentation style.
Well I don't tend to watch films on television Randel but the TV we have is a Panasonic 4K HDR and its best feature is the ability to connect to TH-cam and watch TH-cam just like television. We gave up on television when we had the digital switchover about ten years ago and that caused us to analyze what we actually watched - the end result was we watched the news and that was it. The standard of TV programming has dropped even further now so we won't ever be going back. But to answer your question, I run the discs via a 4K player that cost about £150 three years ago (much cheaper now) and the display is a video projector that cost £1500 three years ago. Unless you are going to purchase a rather massive television there is not much gain from 4K but usually the colour is better thanks to High Dynamic Range (Dolby Vision is the new offering down that same avenue now and some say it is superior) and so if you are thinking of going the 4K route I think a visit to a store that can demonstrate different options is advisable. Here in the UK that would be Richer Sounds which is where most of my equipment has come from over the years. They have an Optoma 4K projector now for under £1K which might be a nice little adventure for you. Simple to use and all you need is a white wall to project onto. I hope this helps. John.
Dolby Atmos is on many new Blu-rays too now. But I do agree and I find I splash out on a 4K rather than a Blu-ray every time a title is available on both. John.
Murder on the orient express is a very good film and the 1974 version is my favorite. I have also seen Hercule Poirot - Murder on the orient express (TV episode 2010) and it's not as good as the movies but still worth a watch. It's a different take on the original story.
I too like the 1974 film but I never really got on with the television series. I don't know why. I hope the 'Death on the Nile' follow-up to 'Murder on the Orient Express' later this year looks as good as 'Orient Express'. Maybe we'll all get the chance to see it in genuine 70mm film projection. What a treat that should be.
I've never actually seen that film but if I recall correctly, it stars the same little girl from the 1994 remake of Miracle on 34th Street and she is brilliant. John.
There is a great TH-cam channel that does short comparisons of movie releases showing comparative clips of each one in various releases; DVD, Bluray, 4K and variations/releases in between. Why is it I find the first Bluray releases from the early 2000s almost always more compelling than the DVDs before or any release after?? It seems like each iteration is just someone messinga around with the contrast buttons, and as for 4k well............one comaprison showed how you could now see the sweat on Tom Hank's cheeks in the Saving Private Ryan opening scenes. But was that the point of the movie? Would that make you cry more at the end? I sometimes think we can become overly wrapped up in technical perfection when the product is about emotional involvement. Oh yes I noticed for a movie expert your choice of Bluray player was quite simple and restrained. Can you recommend me a good one to buy on a budget, as I would like to start swapping some of my favourite movies to Bluray now. Bear in mind I hate most modern films and all my favourites tend to be made before the blue and orange hell inflicted upon us since 2003.
It was a little surprising to me how little perceptible difference there is sometimes from Blu-ray to 4K but we're viewing on tiny home screens so I think that's the limiting factor. Once I've got a 30 foot screen installed I'm sure I'll see a bigger difference! As for a Blu-ray player I stick with Panasonic because I remember all the problems with the format when it started and Panasonic were the only manufacturer who seemed to get to grips with it. Other than that, I prefer to have a player with all the audio connections on the back rather than just an HDMI which is not much use a lot of the time. It is possible to get little devices that break up the sound into different connectors so it's maybe not the biggest consideration but around £100 for a Panasonic Blu-ray with an optical audio connection so you can attach it to an older home cinema amplifier/receiver is probably what's required. For 4K it's a bit more of a minefield and more expensive so let me know if you plan to go down that route. John.
Most people just fool themselves as to quality of the format. When I was in the Army I took and passed the military flight physical which leans heavily on vision quality - In fact I had 20/10 vision(very rare. Point is 99% of y'all will never be able to see what I see (even so called experts). My conclusion - This guy is right - what y'all see has higher quality is mostly higher contrasts. That's it.
If you look at a snow pile 30 meters away, you can see a lot of details. If you try to take the picture with a mobile phone even if it has 20 megapixels, the details will at your best look blurry. NOTE without optical zoom
The biggest problem I've seen with a lot of 4K reviews is the use of DNR, making some 4K releases that were shot on film looked waxy, smeared, or "digital". I still don't have a 4K TV despite it being 2023, but HDR being the main factor for an upgrade makes sense, IF the original source hasn't been "remastered" to look like it's been scrubbed of film grain (different story for digitally shot movies, obviously). Also, until I have a room that's big enough for a TV over 60", I probably won't be able to see a major difference in detail compared to 1080p/2K without sitting uncomfortably close.
Because I've been getting quite a few comments from people in the industry and also learning quite a lot since starting this channel, I'm able to confirm that all 4K disc releases (and I believe Blu-rays too) have a certain amount of image noise reduction because scanning a film exacerbates the appearance of film grain. The reason some of them look completely devoid of grain and some have the side effect of the waxy appearance is because someone has had the idea of turning a film into a 3D abomination to generate a new stream of income. Predator Blu-ray and Terminator 2: Judgment Day are the most widely known titles in this regard but Star Wars was going to go through the same process and so that was 'scrubbed' in preparation for a 3D release but it never happened. That is why the 4K disc release of Star Wars has a sterile look and can be difficult to watch as a result. But overall, these problems are few and if you have a look at a video I did when I chose what I consider to be the ten best 4K's in my collection then you'll get an idea for what is good and perhaps start collecting some of those first. As for getting a big television, better than that would be a video projector as you won't be restricted by the size of the box then and more by the size of the wall you'll be projecting onto. With the best discs, the bigger they are projected, the better they look as they still look great but have an even bigger impact. It's also a lot of fun playing at cinemas. John.
@@moviecollector5920 Didn't even think of that - I thought it was more to do with the younger generation not wanting to see "grainy" footage, and that they wouldn't think something was wrong with the image - or companies thinking 4K = looking "new/modern", but that makes sense too. But... I've also seen this happen with animation, especially anime on Blu-ray, even in just 2K on regular Blu-ray release. And yes, a projector is on my wishlist.... someday! haha. I need the right space and the right wall. Can you get true blacks from a projector like you can from an OLED? I know there will be a difference, also depending on the wall-screen used, but still.
@@polygon.fiction6514 It is the 3D fiasco that's caused the worst excesses of image noise reduction but my opinion is that someone in charge should put a halt on the same master file being used to issue a standard Blu-ray of 4K disc. Some people do like the more sterile look though so maybe it's not quite the stupidity that I think it is. When it comes to video projection there is a lot of nonsense being said about what you can or can't - or perhaps, should or should not do - and it's all a load of cobblers. Paint a flat white wall and you're sorted. Put some black velvet masking around the projected image to fool the human eye into thinking the contrast is better than it really is and you've created a cinema in miniature in the home. Most 4K projectors are very good but I would never want one resembling the look of an OLED telly which I find a little too fake to look at. I've always set all my equipment up to resemble the look of film as closely as possible. I prefer to project onto a wall but because of our present screening room I'm using our ten foot roll down screen that is usually in the living room. I hope to get things back to normal soon though so it will be interesting to see if I can perceive any difference between a white screen and a white wall. If you do ever get a projector, try not to turn the colour up too high as many people seem to think overly rich, fake looking colours produce a better image. When you do then get an exceptionally colourful 4K disc the impact could be somewhat lost. The Ten Commandments is the best example I've seen for this. John.
@@moviecollector5920 A year later, and I now have a 4K OLED, and HDR plus the true blacks can be pretty amazing. It's nice to at least have the option of 4K, even though most 1080p still looks excellent. Although, I've noticed that the "right" amount of DNR - just slightly (like you said) to avoid the overabundance of grain, can still look nice without loss of detail or grain altogether. It's sad how many movies have been "scrubbed", even before a 4K "restoration". On the flipside, sometimes a new 4K restoration means correcting a subpar older transfer used on an older standard blu-ray release.
43 inches is only just over 3 feet wide so most things should look rather good on it. For the best Blu-rays and 4K discs you really need about ten feet wide to be able to pick out the best. I'll get there eventually and also hope to show some on our convention's 24 foot wide 'Scope screen one day too. John.
When I experimented with Blu Ray conversion to DVD format I noticed that the DVD had more quality potential than we usually were presented with. Recently I got the film "Another Round" on DVD instead of Blueray. You really had to doubt that it was "Only DVD" as the quality was premium. It seems to me that DVD has a quality in color and contrast that for instance streaming is lacking behind. Do you have any comments on DVD media of recent?
Yes Jens, I too have watched recently released DVDs and a few years ago I'd have sworn they were Blu-rays. 'Tommy's Honour' is probably the best I've seen in this regard. It all comes down to the master material so the better the master the better the end product. A side effect of the 4K market is that the studios are going back to the best master of all and this usually means the original camera negative. In terms of 35mm negatives, only 70mm blow-up prints and premiere prints (I think) ever came from the original camera negative so there weren't too many of us who saw film at its best. This is why the latest releases are now so good and why the older films - particularly those shot on large format negative stock such as 70mm or VistaVision - usually look better than the newer films that have been shot on video. I think you're the first person to mention this and my channel is a year old in a few days. Well done. John.
@@moviecollector5920 Thank you for the "Badge"! When HD started to come about, nobody were interested at first. I was very interested, so I had to go to an American news group to try and discuss HD material. I even started a group called AVCHD. This was the way I could make my own BR compatible material. Some of the discs I made does not play anymore. I bought an entire series on DVD, and transferred the original to a Blu-ray disc. Now I think that "Streaming" will conquer most of the Movie franchise. But I still buy both Blu-ray and 4K. I have just invested in an Epson EF-12 projector. I love it so much I could even cry by thinking about it!;-)
@@jenserikbech I worked at a the ITV governing body when I was starting out in the world and they developed C-MAC for the then forthcoming British Satellite Broadcasting. This was 1200 or 1250 lines and 16x9. That was the 1980s but no one was interesting and Sky killed it off pronto. I remember it as better in some respects than the present UHD as it perfected image clarity so much that presenters could wear stripy shirts and ties. Yes, that sort of thing is still a bit of an issue on video! John.
Very interesting video. Could you offer any observations on disc rot (particularly with modern blu-ray discs)? PS happy to hear from anyone who has a disc library who may have experience. Thanks in advance.
I've only come across it on laser disc so far Max. It's the glue that binds the disc layers together where it eats through one or more of those layers. Some makes of disc are more prone to it than others. Something I have to be wary of because I do release DVDs and Blu-rays of my own historic British car documentaries and Falcon, JVC and Sony are the only manufacturers who have seen their products survive long term (100 year plus) soak tests. John.
@@maxanderson9187 Over time we may ascertain that specific disc labs are producing discs that are more prone to laser rot/disc rot so let's see how it develops and then perhaps we'll being to know which titles in our collections could be in danger. John.
Excellent video mate. Im also into Rover cars, had a 216 gsi with honda engine and it always took me home. Kept it for 10 years. Dont have many 4k films, more blu rays but recently purchased 1917 and Spielbergs war of the worlds from hmv on their 2 for £30. Both very good but 1917 was excellent and worth getting. I also got the revenant 4k free with my panasonic ub800 4k player, highly recommend that film as well!
Funnily enough I just purchased 1917 in the same HMV deal as well and will really look forward to it now you've said how good it is. Got War of the Worlds a month or so back and have Revenant on Blu-ray. That Rover double disc has sold rather well but ten years ago it would have sold three times as many. That's the way the world is going I'm afraid. I'm being pressed to cover the Rover R8 series next which is the whole of the 200 range from beginning to end Take a look at www.triumphdvd.co.uk and you'll get an idea of what I do. Yes, I'm a British classic car enthusiast too and it's taken us across America to interview all the important people still with us and well as all over the UK. Been quite a ride. John.
@@moviecollector5920 Thanks, I will take a look at the website👍 As they say, great minds think alike😃. You wont be disappointed with 1917, much better than Dunkirk, it looked so good on my Oled screen. My projector is only 1080p full hd so unable to project 4k.
Sadly I cannot remember the movie, maybe it was SW TLJ, maybe, but when I went to my local theater a few years ago, they had the same title playing in both a regular theater and IMAX, and I swear, to my senses, the regular theater both looked and sounded better. I paid for an IMAX ticket so I stayed in the IMAX theater, but I truly believe the regular showing looked better.
Sounds like they were screening the same video presentation in both studios. I don't know that but it sounds like it to me. Film prints running across multiple studios were often the same print running through long tunnels into different booths and projectors and only a few minutes apart between each screening so it would make sense that a duplicate of the video they downloaded would be used twice or more. John.
If they would release Last of the Mohicans (1992) in 4K I'd buy a 4K television. I saw that movie in the theater and it's one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen. Some of the scenes are just breathtaking. There is a lot to what you say about diminishing returns as technology moves on. I remember the HUGE jump from VHS to DVD. It was astounding. Then we got Blu Ray which is noticeably better but the jump isn't as significant. Now 4K looks a little better but it's not enough to make you want to go crazy over it.
I agree about Last of the Mohicans. I also agree with your summary of where we are with modern technology. In other words ninline2000, we are in complete agreement. John.
I've recently seen your posts and find them really interesting. In this particular post I think you referred to changing the HD settings via the appropriate button on the Panny remote. This operation does not work on DV discs. Did you mean just non DV discs? This is sometimes a problem in itself for people with other makes of player (i.e. Sony) as not all disc covers give the HDR info.
Thank you David. I think that's the HDR button I was pointing out but it turns out it's not on the first generation Panasonic 4K players so you have to go through the menu system to put the HDR brightness up and down in those. I expect it's the same for other makes of player such as Sony. It does only function when a 4K disc with HDR is in the player so with any other disc if it's pressed nothing happens. John.
Thank you Super Collector Clark. I think the Star Wars sweatshirt was a EuroDisney purchase at Star Tours in 1992. If I could find somewhere still selling the exact same shirt I'd buy another but alas, I don't know of anyone selling them today. John.
Gemini Man wasn't 120fps (60 per eye) - It depended on the hardware the theaters had. It was 120fps on supported hardware, 60fps otherwise, and some theaters only played it at the standard 24fps. Of course there were 2D and 3D showings. 3D theater screens show both left/right images at the same time.
Thank you for trying to clear that up James. I wonder if 120fps made it look ever worse or actually improved it. But I can well imagine how good the 3D would have been even if it wasn't really a film for some of us old fogeys! John.
tbh I can't see the difference between 60 and 120, but 60/24 is a huge difference. I hate that we're forever stuck with stuttery juddery 24fps because people think high frame rate makes it "look fake". The movie itself wasn't great but i appreciated the effort with the frame rate.
It looks terrible in 2D Gary but I think the whole 120fps format surely means that there were 60fps for each eye. As a one-off novelty at a cinema in 3D using that approach it must have been memorable. I've seen liquid crystal 3D on an Omnimax screen and whilst the documentary showing was rather dull I've never forgotten it. Gemini Man would probably be similar and therefore unforgettable. But in 2D, forget it! John.
Also noticed you seem to be a fan of "Prince of Darkness" I would strongly suggest getting a 4K copy of that. What they did with that film is mind blowing.
If I haven't answered this already Darren (I thought I had but maybe I pressed ESC instead of ENTER). I do have Prince of Darkness and actually put a review up. One of my favourite John Carpenter films. John.
@@moviecollector5920 Like wise now I only just watched it first time on 4K in DTS:X on my 140" screen. Perhaps best I watched it the first time on this format vs the previous version. I am watching your video now on it.
4K Bluray has so much potential, but sadly like 90% of releases are just 2k upscales. As you said, some 1080p Blurays look as good as 4k - Manchester by the sea for example. But HDR on an OLED TV is unbeatable
I think we're mainly just paying for HDR MrBrax. But sometimes it really does make a significant difference - 'Prince of Darkness' being a good example. John.
@@MrBrax I suppose that will happen as computers get faster because it's all down to the time it takes to render the finished film. Good news that they're moving in that direction.
This is hands down one of the best videos to sum up what 4K is and what it can offer and what you should expect when you start watching 4K movies.
Thank you Raid. It made me appreciate how good Blu-ray really is, that's for sure. John.
I jumped into 4K HDR on an OLED panel last year and I have to say I've never seen such exquisite cinema, even when compared to modern theatres. I'm enjoying this renaissance and I'm glad I'm managing to catch dozens of films on 4K UHD BR. I'm sitting about 1.5 meters from a 65-inch panel and it's just extraordinary. The most surprising thing about the format is the quality of some of these old films, many of which just look completely mind-blowing especially with the character of their film grain. You know you're getting right back to the basics of falling in love with film when you come off a mesmerizing screening like Close Encounters of the Third Kind, or Alien or Blade Runner and come away feeling like you're seeing the film in a way you've never had a chance to--at the theatre.
That's the true gift of 4K UHD BR paired with an OLED panel: it's allowed me to see some of my favorite films in an environment that is as close as I can get to the creator's vision. This format is all I need for the rest of my days. For those of you who haven't made the jump, you owe it to yourself as a cinephile to get in while the getting is good.
That's a damned good summing up Eric. Well done!
John.
I see you too are properly sitting very close to your screen when viewing 4k discs, which is the point that many don't understand. Sit too far away and you can't see the improved resolution, so take advantage of 4k and sit as close as practical. I have a 55 inch screen and sit about 5 feet away for 4k titles, and move seating back a couple feet when watching standard hd/1080.
@@pete49327 only way to go. And you're right: sitting far away robs you of the majesty of the 4K experience. A tight small theatre also does wonder for sound. The inverse square law makes large areas poorer for sound quality.
@@EricMalette Well stated!
I also love 4K Blu ray on my OLED. Nothing touches it.
Blu Ray is a very mature format with all of the major bugs in players and transfers solved. 4k is still playing some catch up.
That makes a lot of sense Forrest. Might steal that line in future!
John.
agreed, slowly getting there now though. There seems to be less upscales. Though there can be some brilliant upscales.
Let's face it. Boys don't ever grow up. They may look old, but inside, they are still 14 years old.
I agree with you, but hardly anyone even makes a UHD player anymore, the only really good ones still for sale are the Panasonic ones.
@@Edward135i It appears Sony and LG are still making players as well. I'm not sure about the quality difference between Panasonic and Sony, but Sony has an ES1100 model currently out.
Finally a proper objective review. I have always felt that 2k is good enough for home viewing. Thank you for your work.
My conclusion is still the same several years later and that is that if HDR had have been applied to standard Blu-ray then 4K wouldn't have been required at all. If we all had 25 foot wide screens at home it might be a different matter but we don't and therefore 4K on its own without HDR being exclusive to the format would have meant there was no point to the 4K home movie format. John.
Loving your videos and reviews. I find myself rewatching them, that's something I don't do with any other review videos.
That's very reassuring David. I do try to make them as interesting as possible so people would occasionally feel the need to watch something more than once. John.
I can certainly tell a difference, especially on older films that were originally shot on film. Newer digital films, there isn't as much of a noticeable difference since, a lot of times, the actual digital negatives are only 1080p.
Funnily enough I've just scrutinized the new Spider-Man film which is a 2K master but the 4K disc is immediately perceptibly superior. However, it's the HDR again and not the definition which really isn't that brilliant on either of them. Should make for an interesting review. John.
That's why I'm very selective of my 4k purchases and have only been going for 80s and 90s movies that I want. Well the releases that are actually good that is!
@@papa_sloth_gaming547 Many of the older restored films are fantastic on 4K. Jaws, Alien, Spartacus, Ten Commandments etc.
This channel is the gift that keeps on giving! Covering content and reviews that actually matter and are interesting!! Kudos 🙌🏽
Thank you Steve. I'm hoping to add even more variety and interest as time goes on but it all depends on getting agreements from people and companies who do the work to produce the discs we enjoy or put the films on the big screens we love... such as the BFI IMAX but I suppose I can cross that one off the list now.
John.
Long time! Again really good video! Absolutely agree, the best part of 4K is the HDR which is alone enough to get the 4K disc. However there are instances as you mentioned where 4K trumps the Blu-ray. Le Mans 66 is the perfect example. As is IT chapter 2. Excellent sound on that one too. The one I’m most looking forward to is the Lord of the rings 4K which hopefully should be out 3rd December!
I saw Lord Of The Rings at the Odeon Leicester Square and the image quality was poor so it may be a disappointment. Quality at the cinema was in a decline by then so perhaps modern equipment will be able to fashion a better transfer. I hope so anyway. Good to hear from you again Umar. I hope to be able to increase my TH-cam output a little soon but I am still a little tied up with 'Code Name: R40' which I hope to conclude soon.
Do not forget Dolby Atmos. It is said that Disney only releases movies with Dolby Atmos in 4K
@@Andersljungberg Disney's Dolby Atmos tracks tend to be weak though depending on the title, but other studios do a great job with that or DTS:X. Some regular blu-rays also get Dolby Atmos.
Not just the HDR but the Dolby Atmos is a must!
Excellent video. I've been training my eyes to see the difference between 4K and Blu ray. The biggest difference is often that 4K seems to have the correct color timing as opposed to blu rays having an odd tint or the brightness turned up too high . And of course the added resolution and clarity is nice. I think I'm addicted to 4K discs
I find that Blu-rays that have been authored from the same 4K video master file as the 4K disc tend to look identical other than the colour and density which is of course, HDR. Given that around half the screens in the UK were running 2K video projectors until recently (and many of them still are) I think that tells us all we need to know about 2K and 4K video. If cinemas think they can get away with it then there is surely going to be little perceptible difference in definition that we can make out on our tiny home screens. Well, I've struggled to see any difference other than HDR for five years now anyway.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 I agree that HDR is the big difference for sure
Hello, really enjoy the channel. The home cinema stuff is inspiring. I realize this video is already 2 years old, but one topic that needs clarification is the theoretical video resolution equivalent of various film formats. Vista Vision, which i believe is an 8 perf horizontal 35mm format, you estimated to be about 20k. That may be true, but seems rather far fetched honestly, though I've never seen or done any tests myself. Regardless, I think we need to point out here that actual film release/theatrical prints we see in a cinema have much much less resolution than the original camera negative. So, the resolution disparity between film and digital releases isn't that far off. There have been a few tests studying the perceptual resolution of 35mm in the average cinema, and the very general take away was that they mostly resolve between 1-1.5k resolution. So, not even a true 2k. And that was taking into account various film negatives, lenses, print stocks, gate weave and focus issues. A very "global" approach to the question really, but practical. The idea was to get a sense what the average movie goer experiences in a cinema. It makes sense why 2k was the initial DCP spec. I personally still much prefer film, as resolution is simply one small part what our eye finds compelling. Not to mention, in the case of films shot before Digital Intermediates, the cinematographers were lighting and exposing their shots with the optical printing process of the release print in mind, not for future home theater releases scanned from the negative.
35mm is regularly estimated to be the equivalent of 6K Craig but that is probably 35mm negative stock. 2K is about one-sixth the capability of 35mm but I don't think it's fully possible to equate the two as one is electronic and the other is film. They are two different formats that achieve similar results in a different way. The VistaVision effect does help 2K though as a shrink down from any larger format ensures better image quality in the final 2K product just like VistaVision did for release prints all those years ago. My 20K statement was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. 20K is one of the current estimates for genuine IMAX which is probably about five times the size of VistaVision. Video projection has improved markedly in recent years but it looks like it can be made even better if Doug Trumbull was right with his MAGI solution, a part of which I believe involved putting a shutter in a video projector. The shutter may need to go in video cameras too to achieve the full natural effect that film is so superior with but it all remains to be seen. Certainly it's possible to realistically generate the essential fine film grain effect necessary to achieve life like images with video but not every current film makes seems to have attuned to that yet.
This old video you're looking at was something that I made when my channel was in its infancy. If I'd have known the explosion that would occur a few months later, I'd have held on and done something far more in-depth. The problem is that you only really get one chance to do a video and once it's done, that's what you're stuck with. But it did open a few people's eyes because up to that point there was no one on TH-cam of any scale educating people of the superiority of film. Video is going to improve further whereas genuine IMAX surely is the limit of human ingenuity when it comes to film. We may therefore find that in ten years time video has matched or even improved on it. I do feel a little sorry for younger film enthusiasts who didn't live through the peak of film quality in cinemas. Those were wonderful days when every major new release on a Friday night was an event. Now we only get those sort of releases a couple of times a year if we're lucky. Fortunately, the big event for this year is coming up next month so don't miss out on seeing OPPENHEIMER in the real McCoy and not one of the cheapo, far lower quality video projection, faux IMAX cinemas.
John.
“Hoping they’ve got it right”. The five operative words in ANY and ALL formats.....
How true!
John.
Great review Mr. John. I really like your review style, It touches the authenticity of the film medium, very exciting and engaging to watch as a physical media lover+collector and a film tech geek like me. ☺️👍
Very kind of you to say so Krishna. Right from the outset I wanted to try to make people feel like they were in the cinema with me.
John.
I find that my 4K Sony TV does a great job with Bluray content and movies often look "4K" when played vs HD streaming content. I'm guessing this has to do with it's super-sampling or AI up-scaling engine as the cont, and the fact that Blu-Ray content holds so much more color data and detail than anything HD on a streaming service.
I did run Blu-ray through a standard Blu-ray player as well as an upscaling 4K James and I still couldn't see much difference, if any. I need to repeat that sometime but I think our tiny home screens just aren't big enough for us to see any improvement in overall clarity. It must be there but if we can't pick it up, there's not really much point. And I think that's a major reason why HDR is only available on 4K discs because that is what is making the difference.
John.
My 4k TV upscales my Blu-rays beautifully. I really can’t see the point shelling out more money for 4k at this moment in time. I agree it’s like audiophiles - unless you are willing to pay crazy money on a large top of the range TV to get marginal gains then it’s not really worth it. My upscaled fav films on Blu ray like no country for old men or Blade runner 2049 for example look crazy good anyway! How good do they have to look!!!
Great video! I'd say the biggest problem with judging HDR on a projector is that unless you have a high end model and an anamorphic lens, you're not getting anywhere near the peak brightness of the HDR standard, so it isn't going to have the same impact as watching HDR on an OLED or high end LCD TV.
You may well be right there Mr. Terminator Juice. The HDR seems to look identical on my Panasonic 40 inch (i.e about 35 inches wide) television. I think this is because I always set up my equipment to resemble film as closely as possible whereas most people have the brightness way higher. Good point though and the way a video looks generally does seem to vary on different systems. John.
Very interesting discussion on the subject. I appreciate your mature, understated presentation, which is at odds with a lot of TH-cam content! New subscriber here 👍🏻
Very nice of you to say James. Hopefully I'll be able to get videos done more often now that I'm coming to the end of my own latest epic production.
Yes. It's about content. It's nice to see a chap on TH-cam who doesn't appear to be suffering from ADD. I like the fellow's measured and methodical approach to his presenting. He is a geek of the highest quality as well, and that is a bonus.
I am a bit late to the show as I saw this video now. As usual, a very nice review and a unique perspective on the 4K vs 2K malarkey. Nice to see that you have “Le Man 66” in your collection (One of my favourite guilty pleasures along with films like “Grand Prix” and “overdrive”). Keep up the good work.
And I have 'Grand Prix' and 'Overdrive' too. Both look fabulous on Blu-ray with 'Grand Prix' being just a little extra special owing to its 65mm/70mm origin. John.
I agree with you about HDR. I always amazed by how some people say that 4K HDR version of a movie is oversaturated if you comparing it to the 1080p SDR version. Wrong color; wrong white balance, they say. When I was a kid in 90s, I always watching movies in local cinema on a weekly basis. For me, the richness, the colour that comes from a 4K HDR movie is the closest thing to 35mm celluloid film that I remember. I guess since digital projecting is the new normal since 2010s, people are used to the low contrast, dull color, and clean digital movies.
I thought I'd replied to this Indra so my apologies if this one slipped through the net. Quite a few comments have reappeared in my list as unreplied lately so something appears to be amiss in my TH-cam account.
HDR is the closest we've had to the filmic look on video but it does depend on the grader getting it right. It all seems to be a bit variable right now but maybe there will be some sort of accepted standard in the future. How that could be achieved though I really don't know.
John.
There is something quite funny about watching a grown man with graying hair say "not something for us adults" about anything else while wearing a Star Wars sweatshirt. I guess like time is relative, some things are relative to the times.
Fair point. I don't think I'll ever grow up.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 You've got the right idea, John. I've seen what "growing up" can do to some people. I wouldn't recommend it. Great videos !
I think you're on to something with this one. I've not watched many 4K discs yet but HDR seems to be the most noticeable difference. The bright areas on "The Rise Of Skywalker" really jumped out the screen when i watched it. The other 4K discs i've watched so far have been underwhelming.
@@alansmithee3336 Thank you Alan. I don't think I'll ever be afflicted with that 'growing up' problem... even though I'm sure a lot of people wish I would!
John.
It's amazing how quickly all younger people looking at this will get there 🤔 but you never feel any different.
Once a lover of film, your always a lover of film and especially physical media,
I still like a decent presentation and no streaming issues 🤗
Having owned many blu rays and 4k blu rays as well as 1080p tv's and 4ktv's I can also give my positive opinions on the two formats:
If you have a 4k TV or projector, the blu ray picture upscaling is fantastic. I know most modern movies shown in theaters are mastered in 2k but having them on a 4k cinema projector makes a great difference.
4K blu ray has 2 great features:
the 4k image does look much sharper, especially for older film where they went back into the original negative and scanned a new clean 4k picture.
HDR is a nice polish to the picture and can make your color depth look incredible.
Thank you for sharing your observations tundraportal. When I did this test I used a standard blu-ray player to test against the 4K but still could not see a perceptible difference (apart from HDR of course) but that's down to our tiny home screens. I think you're exactly right that a cinema projector, particularly on a massive screen, will make the extra sharpness and clarity of the 4K obvious. John.
@@moviecollector5920 If your not seeing any difference between a blu ray player and a 4k player (playing the same blu ray disc on both) then you need a good quality (high end) 4K player. Not all players are created equal, even if they are 4k players.
There is absolutely no way a good blu ray player will be as good as a good 4K player, while playing the same blu ray disc. It's just impossible. Until the OPPO players stopped being made, they were the benchmark for 4k, now Panasonic has taken over somewhat, with their £800 - £1000 models.
Someone might still be able to get an OPPO 205 for £3000 or so, if their very lucky on ebay. Mine cost £1500 when new and I dread the day i need to replace it. When I buy 4K films and they come with the blu ray disc, I give the blu ray to my mates, as they look rubbish compared too the 4K versions.
@@sirmalus5153 I need a bigger screen. Eight and a half feet wide isn't enough to show the difference and it's the same at cinemas which is why about half of all screens get away with 2K projection and why most videos shown in cinemas today are 2K. A better 4K player will also improve Blu-ray so don't believe all the sales patter, but I will get a better equipped Panny when one of my existing players gives up.
Thanks for sharing your views, John, comparing these two formats.
Recently I've seen a few 4K releases where the UHD disc is perceptibly superior to the Blu-ray for definition. That wasn't happening a couple of years ago so it's quite a nice update and a bit of a surprise too after years of only being able to say the 4K is superior due to the High Dynamic Range.
John.
Great video John, and very interesting as always! :) I think there is a lot to consider for 4k, like if the movie was transferred from film, or digitally from a 2K DI or native 4K DI, and how much time and effort the studio has put into the mastering, whether the TV, UHD/Blu-ray player has digital upscaling or not, whether it is a digital stream or higher bitrate disk, the screen size and the quality of the TV or projector, and various other factors. Like you say, its diminishing returns vs blu-ray, but I think a lot of the value, as you also mention, are things other than the resolution alone, like HDR, higher peak brightness, wide colour gamut, Atmos soundtrack remastering, etc. Having much more capacity on the disk for more accurate colour and sound data.
The difference isn't anywhere near VHS to DVD, or DVD to Blu-ray, and I think that we will be staying with 4K for a very, very long time, virtually no-one has TVs large enough, or rooms large enough to suit an 85"+ TV, for 8K to make a perceptible difference in sharpness and resolution, plus with more content streaming at lower quality I'm sure the online streaming companies are reluctant to consider 8K, and terrestrial TV is still mostly SD and moving to HD at a snails pace, let alone 4K broadcasts.
One of things I had in mind to say - but I did all this in one take so simply missed it - was that one of us enthusiasts needs to purchase a barn, put a 40ft wide screen in it and then compare Blu-ray to UHD Blu-ray because then I think we'd see a perceptible difference. Whatever the outcome, the quality offered for the home video disc today is something I would have thought unobtainable only ten years ago. I had some television people visit in 2008 as they wanted to purchase the rights to something I'd just completed (didn't let them have it though but that's another story) and they summed up television perfectly at that time: "Television is a broken format." I hadn't really thought about it until then but how right they were. The writing is on the wall and as the older generations pass on the increase in the take-up of on-line streaming and video on demand; something that was being looked at years ago by the broadcasters has now been done successfuly by completely new, forward thinking companies.
@@moviecollector5920 I would really love a barn or a garage to turn into a home theatre with a big screen! I think with the cinemas closing again its even more likely that more content will move online, which is a shame as I enjoy watching movies in a cinema environment on a huge screen, and much prefer to own a physical copy of my movie collection, rather than just perpetually paying to rent access to it.
@@nick1635 We may find that after we're out of the Covid-19 problem that people value a trip to the cinema again. Somehow I doubt it given some of the behaviour we've seen but I live in hope. The number of alcoholics in Britain has apparently gone up from something over 4 million to over 8 million since March so maybe owning physical products again will become popular rather than having a house devoid of belongings because you're out all the time and when you're in you simply watch television or spend spare time on social media. After all, enjoying movies in the home is far better for you than drinking yourself to death!!!
@@moviecollector5920 I do hope so! I would miss going to the cinema and taking the family as a treat. I do agree that peoples habits will probably change, maybe there will be fewer multiplexes and more 'boutique' cinemas when things get back to normal, if they ever do. Thats a sad statistic about an increase in alcoholics, I can believe it with the lack of social contact, furloughs, job losses, etc.
Not even the cinema shows uncompressed video. because not even the cinema can handle so many terabytes for a single movie
Vista vision was used by ILM on the original Star Wars effects and beyond.
Also to add to the 2k 4k debate these new disks are quite remarkable when you consider that very few cinemas have HDR projectors (digital) and how many are still running 2k projectors.
I'd been wondering about that Zig so thank you for clarifying. It must cost a fortune for a cinema video projector so I suppose the best the smaller venues can hope for is that a better model comes up for sale second hand.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 Not like the old days when you could have a projector for decades and it would still be great. Though they are far more reliable to the point that there really isn't such a thing as a projectionist any more. Which is sad. The new laser projectors that some cinemas are starting to get are HDR as much as I can tell. Great channel. Love your set up. The automation is a lovely touch.
@@ZigUncut I got so jaded with the poor quality video projections that I rarely visit a cinema now unless I know a real film print is being screened. Thankfully 70mm has made a bit of a resurgence in recent years so film hasn't gone completely extinct.
Some of the 35mm projectors were around from the 1920s and simply maintained and updated with better lenses and all the modern sound reading and decoding paraphernalia. A projection box used to be such a fascinating, magical place but now they're largely a push button bore.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 Also the later, better, emulsions for the films didn't need any upgrade of the projectors. My appreciation goes to Graham Ritchie in NZ who is still keeping an Erneman II projector going at his home cinema and prefers the 35mm prints to any digital copies.
Always gain a lot of information from your vlogs. I now buy the 4K version including the BluRay version. HMV and Zavvi have made my hobby more accessible with their ‘3 for £30’ 4K offers on some great films. I have Gemini Man in 3d as well, and the crypt scenes are actually not darker than the BluRay/4K on my projector.
I don't use Zavvi often... only once and I think that was for the Super 8 4K steelbook so there was no other option than Zavvi. HMV actually have physical shops though and that's why I always use them if I can because I think our towns and cities will be all the poorer if we lose them. After all, there's nothing else these days other than perhaps the odd minor record store dotted about here and there. Maybe ABBA will now regenerate an almost lost industry - well, we can all dream! The 3 for £30 deals have certainly enlarged my 4K collection... but depleted my bank account!
John.
And sometimes a DVD will come along and still look amazing. Look at To Catch A Theif on DVD. I swear it looks like a bluray! There's a film that would look amazing on 4k.
Agreed. I saw a DVD titled 'Tommy's Honour' recently and that one was better than many Blu-rays too. Then again, I've just purchased 'Ruthless People' on DVD because I couldn't find it on Blu-ray and it looks dreadful!
John.
Terrence Malick's New World offers a pretty exceptional picture on DVD.
The question then becomes, "Do I want an exceptional looking DVD I can get used for $1-3 or do I want to spend $25-30 for the Criterion BR with all the bells and whistles? I went with the DVD. If I can get a deal on BR later, fine. But the DVD is more than serviceable.
It's available on 4k digital if you're interested
I can see the HDR on 4K. watch 2001 in 4k and you'll love the shadows that previous discs cannot represent, so they up the brightness to make up for it.
Thank you for that advice. I shall pay attention to it next time I give 2001 a spin. Which could be any day with the number of times I watch that film!
John.
I viewed Halloween II on two competing blu-ray discs: the older Universal V. the recent Shout Factory edition. Visually, I found no major (if any) differences in picture quality. The sound, however, was brighter on the Universal version . The dialog and sound effects were clearer on the Universal edition.
I have the Scream Factory edition of Halloween II and it's a nice disc. The colours do seem a little too vibrant for a film supposedly set in October but I don't know the sequel well enough to be categoric. If the colours on the 4K of the 1978 film look the same then I'd say that someone has richened them up a little too much. I do have a copy of it on Super 8 and so when I saw an extract of a 35mm print at the National Film Theatre I was able to see that the look was near identical to the Super 8. John.
The potential for improved sound is well worth a mention in the difference between 4k and bluray. Regardless of any improvement of the image, upgrading from bluray to 4k is worth it alone for the improved soundtrack of The Blues Brothers.
You may be right there Mark The trouble is that high end systems tend to sound so good in home settings (unless you have a darned great hall or barn to use) that it's not always so easy to differentiate. Lesser or budget systems show up differences far more readily. John.
Great topic John. At its best, 4K HDR does trump Blu-ray but there are some transfers where this is certainly not the case, the original Star Wars trilogy is a great example. I've come to the point where I can no longer watch the 4K HDR versions of these classic movies because they just seem so flat and dull (with their highly conservative HDR transfer) and the 4K resolution seems to accentuate the DNR making some scenes look horrible!!! I find the Blu-ray versions much more engaging and enjoyable.
I haven't seen the re-hashes of the original Star Wars since 1997 Shouwn. I don't like all the added in cartooning around the screen but I did think the Death Star attack was fabulous in the re-worked 97 version and would have made a good 400ft Super 8 extract. As it is I only ever watch these films in their original form on Super 8. None of them are the best Super 8 prints ever created but they are good and they are the unmolested, original films.
John.
The jump from DVD to Blu-Ray is evident. 4K is amazing, but we aren't all watching them on the same machines and screens, so our vision of these upgraded films aren't all the same. I've watched many 4K films, but I still find Baraka's transfer beyond them all. Shot in 70mm and scanned at 8K. It is incredible on Blu-Ray.
I haven't seen the Blu-ray of Baraka but I've heard quite a bit about it. It's the VistaVision principle David which means that the better the image quality you start with the better then end product even if it's on a lesser format. Murder on the Orient Express is the best video quality I've seen so far. I have seen a couple of 4K's recently that are perceptibly sharper to their Blu-ray equivalents so it's not only High Dynamic Range all the time. John.
Thank you, sir, for another relaxing, thoughtful and measured presentation. You make me smile. Your man-cave is one of the best I have seen. Enjoy yourself with all your wonderful films and your fabulous enthusiasm. You help make the world a more colourful place and that makes me glad.
Thank you Douglas. We moved house just before last Christmas and while I'm not entirely happy with our current setup I'll get it completely sorted eventually. Having said that, I'm never entirely satisfied and I think that's a good way to be as it means I can always find an improvement somewhere.
John.
Interesting video. I think (as you alluded to) that a lot of the difference depends on the source material. Films digital shot at 2K can't be anything other than upscaled, whereas those shot on film or 4K+ digital can make the most of a 4K viewing chain. Agreed, HDR is a bonus regardless of the source's resolution. I find web sites that describe whether or not a film is native 4K to be helpful in this respect.
IMDB do list what a film/video was shot in. It's under Technical Details if you didn't already know about it. Jolly handy.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 I didn't know that, and yes that's very useful: thanks for the tip! I was thinking something more along of this: www.digiraw.com/DVD-4K-Bluray-ripping-service/4K-UHD-ripping-service/the-real-or-fake-4K-list/
@@RichTeer My browser won't actually allow me to get to that web site - maybe the anti-virus is throwing a fit about something on there. But I was thinking about IMDB and the origin of the films are under Full Technical Specs. at the bottom of the home page of each film. This will take you to Alien for example: www.imdb.com/title/tt0078748/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec
I'm viewing on a Sony A80J OLED and a Panasonic UB820. The picture is fantastic, there are a lot of variables with equipment which all influence the final image. Settings can make a huge difference, lighting and I even found a damaged cable caused issues. I can second what others have said, sit very close to a 4K TV to view 4K material to see the benefits.
Or blow it up as big as possible with a video projector. I think we need at least 24 feet width to stand a chance of seeing a definite difference though and that corresponds to what is going on in cinemas because half of all studios in the UK are apparently still projecting in 2K. John.
Having used a fairly entry level screen for the last few years, I saw no perceivable difference between 2K and 4K. Having recently upgraded to a much better OLED screen, I can notice an almost imperceptible softness on 2K compared to 4K, although this might even just be the media that I have watched so far. As you've said in this video, the real perceptible difference is HDR.
OLED does produce fabulous imagery but sometimes is enhancing things that perhaps should be enhanced. As televisions go though, they do seem to be the best around today. Keith at Euphoria made an interesting video recently on the steelbook of The Invisible Man which I remember as being a tad dowdy on both my systems but on Keith's OLED he was impressed with it. OLED seems to be making blacks look blacker than film which shouldn't really happen but it has impressed Keith. HDR has made the difference between 4K and 2K but I suspect that if HDR had have been added to Blu-ray then 4K would have been a complete waste of time on our tiny home screens.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 LG seems to crush blacks ans Sony to elevate blacks, Panasonic oleds on the other hand seem to have the best balanced black levels and picture. At least that is what I'm reading.
@@pietroscarpa2384 Keith at Euphoria Pictures included what he thinks of Dune in his round-up of what he's watched yesterday. It looked better on his OLED television than it did on my video projector so this does seem to explain why it's so variable. I'll put a link in the description to this video asap.
John.
Excellent insight into the realms and totally correct that the HDR can make all the difference. I'm finding similar even with 1080P vs. 4K but that's to be expected (without having a projector of course). Certainly Blu-ray is not to be underestimated but I've witnessed that's also the case for streaming today what with the really advanced compression codecs being used and decent equipment when combined with decent available bandwidth, I've certainly seen some superb quality streamed via the likes of Netflix that is almost comparable to disc and of which has now become affordable. All of this though is of likely credit due to the incredible upscaling technology that has got exceedingly good. It's just sad that Cinema is taking a direct hit at the moment but I guess we've been through this before beyond and out of those early eighties and the fun we had with that horrible videotape!
I've become increasingly disinterested in streaming Mike. I do still enjoy watching TH-cam on our television but that's a little different. The quality of the discs we're enjoying lately has just knocked on-line into a cocked hat as far as I'm concerned but I will always listen to your insights on the subject. Can't beat having the physical product and know it's always there on the shelf whenever you're ready to take another look.
From what I've seen, Amazon Prime seems to have the best quality, especially if you download via the app before watching.
i find that 1080p holds up quite well to about 60 inches but at about 85 inches it really gets stretched too far and 4K clearly and obviously restores that nice crisp HD look. I can still easily watch 1080p on 135 inch projector though. Other image quality factors are more important like brightness, contrast and colors.
I don't actually know how wide 60 inches is David but probably about four feet which isn't very big. It seems that tellies show up the differences more than video projection judging by what you're saying. I'm currently projecting ten feet wide but I can't tell you what that is in television measurements other than it's got to be somewhat bigger than 135 inches. The perceptible difference I pick up on is HDR but even that can be difficult to perceive because some Blu-rays are so good. I think I made this video about three years ago but I'm still checking just about every 4K I watch against the Blu-ray. I never watch on a telly though other than to occasionally check a detail for a review. I haven't watched movies on a telly for about 18 years now which is when affordable home video projection became just about good enough. John.
I think you need at least a 65" TV to really appreciate the difference in resolution. And even then, it depends on the transfer and the way it is filmed. A movie like Blade Runner really pops because, in addition to being a very high-quality source and excellent 4k scan, it has a lot of fine detail. Those tiny little windows in the giant buildings when you see the cityscape are much better defined in 4K. Especially since they were practical effects being filmed. It's not as impressive with CGI since CGI is only processed at 2K currently. All that said, it really is the color, sound and HDR that justifies the format the most.
Blade Runner is a great 4K disc. One of the top 35mm transfers I think and I should take another look at it. Well, you've given me an excuse now. It's easier to see the differences in image quality the bigger you go, that's for sure. Maybe if we can resurrect the BFCC we can really put the whole 2K vs. 4K to bed by doing direct comparisons on the 24ft wide screen. Alternatively we can hire the BFI IMAX and project them at 90 feet wide.
John.
Another thing that comes into play is what the Blu-ray player and the TV is doing. I have a DVD with Gandhi by Attenborough and played on a Panasonic 4k player with a Samsung OLED TV it looks like a Blu-ray. Both those devices have digital signal processors and who knows what they are up to. Some clever autocorrelation?
All our systems are different and that's something that became increasingly apparent in the four years since this video. Tellies don't make the results as obvious as projection for obvious reasons but even so, you'll still find different results in different combinations of player and telly.
John.
I noticed Interstellar 4K had this less sharp almost out of focus/smudgy quality that made it look like real life and not a simulacrum. Blu ray is very sharp but have noticed the micro contrast and detail on 4K to be jaw dropping at times. That said a decent blu ray is enough for most people. Has anyone done a ranking of best DVD/blu ray/4K transfers? A sort of Premier league table? It’s only fair to reward studios that actually bother to take the time to do it right. Jaws 4K is absolutely incredible btw.
Now that mention the best DVDs Mr. Holocaust, there are some amazing quality DVDs coming out these days. I saw a little known film called 'Tommy's Honour' on DVD a few months ago and it was like many Blu-rays.
Agree about Jaws in 4K. A fabulous video transfer.
John.
I was revisiting this video and I agree bluray can be good enough for all but the smallest subgroup of viewers. If they had HDR like you discussed, I am unsure 4K would be a thing for home consumers. With a well encoded Blu-ray at proper viewing distances the resolution bump to 4K would be very difficult to discern for the majority of people. Even at larger screen sizes, you should be further away so it doesn’t become too much of a screen size issue. Now if you are sitting so close that you can’t take in the whole picture on screen, then. That’s a different story.
I still don't think we'd be able to discern a difference most of the time Robert. I think I underestimated the quality of Blu-ray and making this video almost four years ago opened my eyes. However, put a 4K disc on a 24ft wide 'Scope screen and then compare it to the Blu-ray and we might see a whole different picture. Know anyone with a 24ft wide screen?.... oh yes, I have one sitting in the cupboard here. Maybe when we do another BFCC I should make the time within the programme for the day to do a 4K vs. 2K (ish) comparison on it.
Thank you for looking at this video again and leaving a comment. It does still seem to get watched a bit so maybe it's a subject I should re-visit one day.
John.
John, I have a nice 4K theater with a 150 inch 2.35 screen. The key point is that my Panasonic 4K blu ray player up Reese’s 1080p to 4K. This makes Blu Rays appear almost as good as native 4K discs. As movie fans, it’s a good time. Thanks for your great work.
Is that 150 inches wide or a diagonal measurement Robert. Come on, get your tape measure out!!! I did compare a lot of these 4K discs against the Blu-ray playing in a standard 1080p player and it was still difficult to discern the difference. One day I'll give it all a try on my 10 foot wide drop down screen which may be sizeable enough to make any difference more obvious. I think one of us needs a barn with a 40 foot screen installed just to complete this exercise once and for all.
@@moviecollector5920 Hi John, 150" diagonal screen about 135" wide including the frame. I've switched from a 1.78 to 2.35 - an expensive mistake resulting in a brand new Stewart screen languishing in my spare bedroom. On the difference I think the UHD has more impact than the resolution. of course, the source material is the most important. Just bought the Blu-ray of the old British science fiction classic - The Day The Earth Caught Fire - very excited!
@@Celestialrob 11 feet 3 inches. An impressive size. And as for The Day The Earth Caught Fire, I'm coming round!!!
@@moviecollector5920 yeah, but it's a long trip to California :) I think we have the same 4k player!
»Us adults that never grow up» Fantastic
Ho ho - and to finish the line I started, "we just get older!" John.
Interesting fact for you. In "The Dark Knight" again a Nolan film. Really the first film to use IMAX for regular cinema they had run out of IMAX cameras to use on set. Lots of his scenes are completely live and real in camera so you have to capture it from many angles more often than not. The scene where they flipped the truck they actual used IMAX cameras and Vista Vision cameras along side them to get enough coverage. I personally can't see the difference even having seeing it on IMAX 3 times. I think Vista Vision and IMAX intercut very nicely.
Yes, VistaVision is outstanding in its own right. If you saw Dark Knight at one of the four genuine IMAX theatres and it looked about as good as IMAX then that shows how good it is. Bradford, Manchester, London Waterloo and London Science Museum although I'm told just the two London theatres screen genuine IMAX now... not sure I can believe that!
John.
@@moviecollector5920 It is sad we only have 2 locations left with the actual film projector but back then all the IMAX theaters had them.
@@darrenorange2982 Perhaps I've inadvertently started a campaign to get the IMAX film projectors back!
@@moviecollector5920 Hi John , I actually viewed The Dark knight in 2008 in IMAX at Manchester , if i recall it was the only movie to be shown in IMAX at the timewith a really limited number of viewings (had to prebook) , all I can say was WOW , 13 years later I can still remember it was breath taking , the sharpness of the image on that kind of resolution/screen size was really unreal , they were only a couple of true IMAX scenes , the truck flip being one of them..
@@QFilmz That would have been one of the first mainstream films to include a section of genuine IMAX. Superman Returns had a few in 2006 and although it was spectacular the sequences in question were in 3D so a lot of the impact of the 70mm IMAX image clarity was lost. Someone has told me that the Manchester IMAX is no longer screening film so you'll need to check that before you set out to see another film there. If it's video only then it's probably not worth it yet but video cameras and projection are improving all the time. Give it another few years and we may be getting IMAX film quality from video... just not for a while yet and then there's the expensive projectors to swap out too so thinking about it, it may be a while.
From my understanding 4K isn't really 4K if we base the resolution from earlier years when it was called 720p, 1080p etc. I mean 4K in height is just the double of 1080p 2160p. In reality it's just 2K but that doesn't sound that cool. So 4K feels just like a PR move by the companies to make the consumer think it's four times better. Compare the resolution alone I see a very small difference. For me the big difference is HDR and Dolby Vision.
I think you've hit the nail on the head.
John.
I’d disagree it’s absolutely not a PR move. Remember that your tv and player are up scaling the 1080p to 2160p. I absolutely agree that HDR is extremely important but with a good oled tv and a solid 4k player a well mastered 4k DI disc blows hd out of the water.
@@MistaFussichannel Yeah but what I mean is that 4K might imply the height is 4000 pixels like 1080 is 1080 pixels in height. Which I thought when I first heard the 4K label. Then to label it 2K doesn't sell the picture upgrade as well to the masses as if you label i 4K.
It depends, I normally would say yes, you can see a difference. Whether the presentation is better depends also ony personal taste. And the biggest factor is also the ratio of screen size and viewing distance.
And I also think Stefan, that the bigger the screen the easier it will be to gell the difference. Once I've got a 30 foot wide screen in my home I'll be able to give better informed opinions of each release. First I just need a much bigger home! John.
I’ve got a good 4k Samsung TV and it upscales my Blu-rays beautifully. From what I’ve seen of 4k even with HDR I won’t be making an upgrade anytime soon.
Blu-ray is fabulous so you're making the right decision there JR. When your telly packs up is the time to get into 4K. John.
Great reviews! I agree with you about HDR. I think 2K still holds up, though when when getting to 77" or bigger I do see a markable difference.
I think 77 inches is about five feet wide in reality. What I'd like to do is project a direct comparison 24 feet wide on the BFCC CinemaScope screen. If we can resurrect the BFCC and get a 4K projector capable of that size there then we'll all be able to find out once and for all how well Blu-ray stands up. It will be a lot of fun to do it so keep your fingers crossed. John.
I don’t get it, why would the screen size matter if the view distance ratio remains consistent. Are you getting so close that you are viewing content outside your effective field of view?
Blu-ray is 1080P 4:4:4 while UHD is 2160 4:2:0 which in effect means UHD has double the resolution for luminance both horizontally and vertically while colour is exactly the same colour resolution for both. But I find its the variable compression that makes the most difference, that varies film to film.
Interesting information Eddie. Thank you for taking the time to let us all know.
John.
Greetings.
At last; an educated man. You are 100% right, sir. The tag '4K' is the biggest scam since sliced bread!
It´s a way of - once again - trying to sell..sell..SELL!!! The '4K'-resolution is not "four times better"!
In practice the difference in picture quality (for most people) is impossible to see with the naked eye.
First of all, the term itself ('4K') is misleading/lying. That term refers to the theoretical horizontal resolution of 3840 pixels. A Blu-ray disc offers a horizontal resolution of 1920 pixels. In other words: The "four times better" resolution-scam is in reality TWICE the resolution - not(!) four.
Secondly, the false ads and lies (hence) compares apples with oranges. As mentioned the term '4K' refers to the h-o-r-i-z-o-n-t-a-l resolution, okay. But when it comes to Blu-ray, the false ads and lies compare it to the v-e-r-t-i-c-a-l resolution 1080 pixels - NOT the horizontal resolution!
If one is doing a technical comparison = do it right.
Further details/explanation:
"A 4K Blu-ray disc has a resolution of 3840 x 2160 pixels - 3840 pixels on the width and 2160 pixels on the height. In fact, the word “Ultra HD Blu-ray” would be more accurate than “4K Blu-ray”. “4K” is more like a word for propaganda purposes because 3840 pixels do not reach 4000 pixels."
Conclusion:
Get yourself a Class A Blu-ray player and a Class A 50 to 65 inch tv. Calibrate them both professionally (take your t-i-m-e with it) and you are set for life!
It is not just about the "resolution" when it comes to getting the most film-like experience in your home. I myself go for correct color schemes, OAR, correct black levels, etc.
Stop buying into the liars selling points. They only want our hard earned dough!
Keep up the good work with this channel. Splendid job!
Sincerely.
@@MrChiffre Well it is technically four times the info since its from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 (yeah - not the full 4096 either), but the drop from 4:4:4 to 4:2:0 leaves the luminance at 4k but the colour is 1080p. I agree it is a bit of a con, adding HDR helps and increasing colour depth helps but I suspect the elephant in the room is the variable compression, on a blu-ray there were scenes with facial closeups for example, on one I could clearly see each hair stubble, on another it was blurred, I wonder if burning a blu-ray to a 100gb UHD disk would get the same improvement in picture? Whatever though, as someone said on a projector thread "don't worry your already living the dream" regarding the discussion on equipment, he was right and I do enjoy sitting back with a 72" screen and my current equipment :)
@@MrEddieLomax Greetings..missster Loomax...!
I thank you for ihre reply. I am no mathematician nor am I Einstein, but I still can´t get it into my thick skull how it can be "four times" (commercial lies) the resolution?:/ The Companys that make these..thingsss..shouldn´t read pixels and lines of resolution any way they please, should they?!
It should be either vertical or horizontal alike, in my opinion.
I will not falter. I will not yield. Read; no fake "upgrading" for me.
LONG LIVE BD (and in some cases, DVD)!!
Sincerely:)
@@MrChiffre Its four times the resolution (or bandwidth) since is twice the width and also twice the height. I must admit I used to think 2k -> 4k was a doubling but the height needs to be taken care of. I work on SDI video which is sent down single wire BNC cables, a 1920x1080P 60 frames a second video can be sent down a 3Gbps (3G-SDI) cable, but a 4k res like 3840x2160P60 requires a 12Gbps link (we also see it transmitted often with 4 * 3G cables in the past to get the long range). Whats crazy now is we can send the 12G signal over 100m with the latest chips, HDMI struggles beyond 10m :) But HDMI has bi-directional communications - SDI is one way...
My 2 pence worth, and this applies to physical discs, not streaming or TV! Overall for a casual viewer up to a 50" screen I would say not worth upgrading unless the price is close.
For me(without a HDR display) there is a noticeable image sharpness, but only in long range shots etc. Also, a new, mostly part digital film will barely show any difference between 1080p and 2160p.
I applaud the 4k/UHD upgrade that film companies apply to a 1080p film as I find them as impressive(especially older films) even compared to a native 4K shoot from Columbia Pictures.
There are many things I could go on about when talking about Blu-ray and on-demand film quality...........
I think you've hit the nail on the head there with a perfect summary.
John.
Manchester's Vue Printworks is also 70mm Imax I believe.
Only one of three cinemas currently capable of projecting IMAX in the UK today. Andy at Electricgeek took a trip from Scotland to Manchester to see OPPENHEIMER there and shot a video of his adventure which is up on TH-cam and worth a look. Bradford will be putting IMAX back in when it re-opens apparently so we'll have four IMAX cinemas then.
John.
Thanks I'll give that a watch. It's actually my local cinema so I was lucky enough to see Oppenheimer and also Dunkirk if I remember correctly in 70mm. Not my favourite movies of all time or anything but a fantastic experience. Got a real sense of vertigo from the dogfighting scenes in Dunkirk which has to be a good sign!
@@retromuel INTERSTELLAR is the ultimate cinema movie providing you see it in genuine IMAX and not one of the faux IMAX video projection cinemas. TENET is the most impressive image quality but it's a close call between that and DUNKIRK.
John.
I think the best 4K disc I've seen is Passengers. Not really my type of movie, but is super 4k crispy!
Passengers is a great Blu-ray. It is a video rather than a film though but I do think it's one of the best looking videos I've seen. John.
I prefer 2K BD mainly for the fact they release the new 4K restorations of films on 2K BDs anyway after the UHD releases or as a bonus disc. Also 2K just has a much larger catalogue of films and TV shows. Until 4K HDR OLED TVs becomes a lot more affordable I'll stick to 2K BD
Blu-ray is amazing and I underestimated it until the 4K discs came along. But 4K is better due to HDR... not always, but most of the time. Best way to enjoy either format is with a 4K video projector onto a white wall as big as you can get it. John.
I’m surprised you set the Panasonic to bright environment. This in my experience is the least accurate option and leads to washed out colours. Standard is perfect in a dark room in my opinion. Seems to be the most accurate. Great videos though!
It varies from disc to disc. I think Spider-Man is the one I've set lowest of all but a lot of them have to go on Light Environment so that the image isn't too blown out. Most do seem to be best on Bright although all our systems are different and what works best on one will not be the same on another. John.
Thanks John for the very informative and interesting video. I must have a look around for that Blu-ray you made on Rover.
All the best
Jer
Most of the DVD/Blu-ray dealers had gone out of business by the time of that Rover 75 production Jer so I didn't have much opportunity to sell it but it went pretty well irrespective of that from my own TriumphDVD site. That's all pretty much at an end now. The end was coming but the Covid-19 pandemic finished it off. It finished off everything I did but if it hadn't I certainly wouldn't have decided to start this movie channel so it wasn't all bad. I just finished the last ever disc production in October so now I've done everything I promised certain people and car clubs I would do it's time to sort out what I'll be doing next. It will be difficult to keep this channel going without any income at all so I'll have to come up with something.
Good luck with your own channel. I think I'm your 13th subscriber.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 Thanks John for the sub (very much appreciated) and for all the information on the Rover 75 production, it's a shame with what happened with the COVID pandemic but at least you started this channel which is great and from your channel I found Trevor's, so not all bad.
All the best for the future and I look forward to seeing your next video.
Jer
Agree, people were expecting the kinda leap that was DVD to blu ray well IMHO anyway.
Some 4K have really impressed me, eg , Ad Astra, 1917, Mortal engines, TENET,Jaws and Spartacus and especially Logan !( Brilliant ).
But what has most impressed me about my New UHD player and Oled is upscaled blu ray HD 1080.
60% plus blu ray upscaled is so good no need to go 4k unless it's a great transfer.
So I've got 500-550 blu rays but so far only 60 4k as it would be madness and an unnecessary waste of money to replace them all.
PS enjoying your channel 👍
That's a good summary. I tested my standard Blu-ray player against upscaled Blu-ray and there was little or no perceptible difference there either. A test I will do again some time in the future.
At the time of this test I think the 'Murder on the Orient Express' Blu-ray was better than any of the 4K discs I had at the time, other than 'Murder on the Orient Express' of course. It's still the best but 'Tenet' came pretty close. '1917' is very good too but sometimes too obviously manipulated video rather than film which marks it down a notch or two for me. Most of the time though, '1917' is exceptional.
John.
On Panasonic UHD players, specify in settings what type of screen you have. . then the question is whether the screen you have actually has sufficient brightness for HDR
I'll take a look for that Anders. I didn't ever see it before and I was back and forth in there to ensure the setup was as close to film as possible. Don't know what an answer of "white wall" would do to the poor machine!
John.
A difference yes but if you know the movie well . Not sure I'd notice a difference beetween a Iron Man 4k or 2k but I can see it with 2001 , The Shinning ,Interstellar , Blade Runner ...
I think that difference is HDR H.A.L. 9000. I need a bigger screen... much bigger!
John.
The best image and sound quality 4K disc I’ve watched to date is - Lucy - absolutely amazing.
That's in a video I made last year about the ten best movies shot on video on 4K. It wasn't all shot on video but I included it anyway because it's so good all the way through. Best 4K to date is still Murder on the Orient Express owing to its modern, fine grain 65mm film stock. Still nothing matches large format film so anything released 70mm or genuine 15/70 IMAX are the top 4K releases. Top Gun: Maverick is very good though and that was shot entirely on video. John.
"not something for us adults or those adults that never grow up..." you got it
I might get old but I don't expect I'll ever grow up.
I watch 4K content on a 55 inch OLED from 9 feet away.
There is a difference in resolution alone. 4K adds what I can only describe as a sharpness to the picture. It’s not the jump from SD to HD, but it is noticeable. However, when combined with HDR and HFR, the level of realism is just stunning.
I think it's just that we're unlikely to see a remarkable difference between HD and UHD on our tiny home screens. If we can get the BFCC resurrected after the pandemic then the plan is to test 4K against Blu-ray on the 24 foot wide BFCC screen. If that doesn't make the difference obvious then we'd better hire the Odeon Leicester Square instead!
There is a difference and you can definitely see it!!! Especially as your TVs get larger under 42 inches it’s hard to see the difference but once you start getting into 50 and above you can see the difference.
I'm currently at 9 feet wide Michael but I estimate about 25 feet might make it obvious. I don't think a big enough telly exists... well, not for home use anyway. John.
Love your reviews and insights!
I personally am seeing the difference in sharpness in 4ks over 2k bluerays.
Bluerays tend to look soft, and of course the HDR colour.
One issue that most people forget or don't think I about is the quality of our eyes at the viewing distance.
So what I did was get a custom set of glasses cut for the distance I watch my 65" oled tv.
I watch at about 2.25 .metres away and got the optom to maximise viewing clarity for this viewing distance, instead of far or short distances.
Amazing how you can see the quality difference by upgrading your eyes.
Just make sure you get a pair that are large enough to cover your periferal and does not have any blue light or coatings that filter the light.
Worked for me :)
Thanks for that NIck. I have an eye test coming up so that may tell me something. Last time I was 20/10 but that was two years ago now and I know my close-up vision has gone a little. I think what is possibly happening on my system is that the image is so sharp on the video projector that any shortcomings are disguised (not quite the same on my 40 inch television as it's simply too small). But if I were to project two identical systems next to each other on the same sized screen I would see the difference, although it would be small. Similarly, a 30 foot wide screen would surely illustrate the extra detail of a genuine 4K disc. On the other hand, Murder On The Orient Express is so good that it may still be impossible to tell. HDR is the main difference on our tiny home screens and I suppose that's one reason why HDR has not been applied to Blu-ray.
As always, loved your video (and your jumper!) :)
You can never have enough jumpers! John.
Excellent work on this John much appreciated.
Thank you for saying so. My conclusions are still the same today as they were when I recorded this video and it's HDR that makes the difference... in the absence of a 25 foot screen!
John.
If one had the necessary equipment such as a 35mm projector and a few reels of 35mm prints, a 4k vs 35mm film would make a good video. Even a 35mm filmstrip projector and a few still frames of a 4k bluray disc could be used to make the comparison.
I did something similar to this in my Alien review Jerry. I plan to do the same with The Fifth Element and possibly a few others so stand by.
John.
To some extent, I would imagine the ability of a projector to focus would be a limiting factor. My home theatre projector is an older 1080p model, midrange at the time (though still several times the size of an office projector), and I'm pretty sure that I'm not even seeing a true 1080p image without being able to get perfect focus (a combination of uneven focus due to lens shift, and the limitations of my eyesight to judge focus on the distant screen while standing next to the projector, and perhaps the quality of the optics). So even if my projector had a 4K display element, it wouldn't make any difference due to the imperfect focus. But on a newer and more expensive projector, I'm sure it would matter more.
It's interesting to see the debate about 4K versus HDR in the film world, because there's a similar debate in the gaming space. In gaming, higher resolutions mean lower framerates, and unlike in film, there is nothing desirable about lower framerates in games. So there is a debate over, what look better, 4K with standard dynamic range, or 1440p (2560x1440) with high dynamic range? And many people argue that the impact of good HDR is a much bigger difference than the diminishing returns of higher resolutions.
I hear what you're saying about focusing from distance Adam because at the British Film Collectors Conventions we were often about 40 yards from the screen and we needed binoculars. Sounds ridiculous, but true. Our Optoma projector is now three years old but it astounds me how quickly home video projection moved on and got to the current level. Quite amazing.
Gaming has had a significant impact on the film industry - probably not always the most desirable impact in some respects but the gaming industry is another things that has moved on so quickly. I would have loved some of these near real life games when I was young but sadly I ran out of time to play any of them about 30 years ago and haven't touched any ever since.
John.
Great video as always John. Here is something I have often wondered, if you have a film that was only released on DVD, is it better to watch it on a BluRay player that has 4k enhancing or to watch it on a 4k bluray player. I have the directors cut/special edition of Star Trek The Motion Picture, only on DVD. On my old Panasonic BluRay, looks great. When I watched on a 4k player, looked dreadful. Therefore is it better to keep a DVD player, BluRay and a 4k BluRay?
Well I've kept them all Gary. One point I can't remember if I included in the 4K vs. Blu-ray/2K video is that all systems vary and what looks exceptional on one may not like quite the same on another. Always minimize or turn off any digital trickery such as 'Sharpen' and that may stop messing the image up on certain discs. Other than that, run the disc via whichever player it looks best on.
I have the Marketing Films 3x400ft Super 8 cut down of Star Trek The Motion Picture. And I was just thinking tonight (while watching episode 7 of Star Trek Picard on Blu-ray) how I would handle a Star Trek retrospective review and that Super 8 print would show up as would the original Enterprise being restored at the International Air & Space Museum back in 2016 cos' guess who was there with a video camera and managed to get access?!?
John.
@@moviecollector5920 Ha. Excellent John. I am a massive sci fi fan and I have a picture of me in Matt Smith's/Calpadi's tardis console room, so I understand your joy of seeing the Enterprise.
Thanks for that explanation on the differing tech and pros and cons of all. Very useful. Appreciated.
@@Thunderpuddle How they got Captain Kirk to fit in that spaceship is beyond me. They must have found a way to miniaturize William Shatner!
John.
@@moviecollector5920 Movie Magic
I've recently started double dipping some of my favourite films from my Blu Ray copies to the 4K copies and they look and sound so much better. The Picture Quality is outstanding! From 1080p to 4K, I can really notice the difference. 1080p is still excellent, but 4K is superior in every way.
That's HDR Cooper. If it were applied to standard Blu-ray they'd never have been able to sell the 4K format so that's why it was done. Unless there's a fundamental change I expect this is about as far as home video can be taken.
The sound is usually identical unless there has been a remix into a later sound format such as Dolby Atmos.
John.
I decided to buy blu rays more and not 4k movies since my tv is a 55 inch 4k hdr and i can use the hdr to watch blu rays and sometimes the picture looks better plus i have noticed the bit rate on blu rays have come down less than 30 mbps over the last few years.
Thank you for watching so many of my videos Andrew. I am a much bigger fan of Blu-ray discs than I was thanks to looking at so many of them for this comparison video. 4K is marketed as the format of excellence but the truth is that much of the time you'd be hard pushed to tell the difference between a 4K disc and a 2K Blu-ray. John.
Not jut the HDR, but the resolution is a huge difference, even on "just" a 55". Watching a good quality 4k transfer, stuff just pops off the screen unlike anything I've ever seen on standard 1080p.
Glad it works on your system Jay. I must try our ten foot wide screen to give it a more thorough comparison. Hopefully we'll resurrect the BFCC after the virus is dealt with so we can do the same test on the 24 foot wide screen.
John.
Even before seeing this, I had decided that I would buy 4k's if A: I didn't own the film on 1080p and really wanted it in my collection and B: if either the price was right (so waiting, with ice in my belly) or if the need to own was so great as to not care about cost, or C: if a reliable source said it was a must-own and the film was good.. I will joyfully keep watching my Blu-ray's and buy 4k's of things which I simply must have on that format.
That is pretty much what I was doing until starting this channel and people started asking me to review films I'd already purchased previously on other formats. It's a good way to collect without spending way too much. John.
Another great review/comparison thank you. Clearly subjective though depending on equipment, settings, ones own colour balance and of course preference. I think the only reference is possibly something you mentioned in another review(s), and that is, 'as the director intended'. Interestingly, the 4K update of A Fistful of Dollars from Kino Lorber and the other two in the series don't use HDR, but they are very well done regardless with clear improvements.
That said, I shown a family member 2014 & 2017 Blu-Ray versions of this film with horrible green & blue filter tints in that order, along with poor'ish lighting and what could be mistaken for a DVD, against the new crisp 4K release with clear blue skies, very good lighting and definition. They preferred the 2017 version -- go figure! 🤪
Several comments have praised the Dollars films on 4K on here which is quite surprising given the TechniScope origin. The 'TechniScope' name was a way of disguising the inferior 35mm format that was used which was half of normal 35mm. It probably illustrates how good film was and is that the 4K video discs are held in such high regard from such comparatively low quality shoots. It must have saved quite a bit of money though only using half the negative film stock so given who and where they were made, it's understandable. Imagine how they could have looked if shot full frame 'Scope 35mm.
And you're right, all our equipment is different and will give slightly differing results. My tests did prove to me that there was little difference between 4K and 2K/Blu-ray and that difference was HDR. Now The Others has been released without HDR and still the 4K is perceptibly superior it's brought my conclusion from three years ago into question. I am using a different video projector most of the time now though.
John.
In the Dollar 'The Man With No Name' Kino Lorber 4K trilogy, they apparently painstakingly colour balanced frame-by-frame. Do you think perhaps this might be considered a Manual HDR, or MHDR (heard it here first 😅)? A video from you on what is HDR, could be interesting?@@moviecollector5920
Please let us know how to Purchase the Doc you are creating "R40". I would love to purchase it.
Don't feel compelled to buy anything Bob please. My car documentaries are a bit in-depth so they're not for everyone but take a look at www.triumphdvd.co.uk and have a look at the preview on there. That might be enough as many of the interviewees are included along with plenty of looks at the cars. Tomorrow it's British Leyland day at Gaydon so guess where I'll be? John.
Great video. Unfortunately I’m not versed in film and 35mm ect, it is something I would like to learn more about. Am I right in thinking 8k would be the closest to 35mm quality? Or is it the HDR Colour that gets us closer to 35mm? I have a BenQ projector and watching First Blood was magnificent, the HDR makes it night and day vs the Blu Ray.
I remember you getting the projector Danny. 35mm is estimated at about 6K I think but film is random grain so it's probably higher quality than that in reality. Negative stock would be a lot higher. Equivalence between video and film is difficult and it's all down to perceptions really. In that regard a home screen is going to look similar irrespective of 35mm film or video because we just don't have the room for big enough screens. I did mean to suggest that one of us needs to purchase a barn and stick a 40 foot screen in it just so we can really put all the different formats to the test but I forgot to say it. It is the HDR that makes the 4K discs superior (assuming it's been done correctly that is) and with that more lifelike colour it does make video look more like a film print. On home screens it is very close now between film and video.
Cheers John 👍🏼
@@moviecollector5920 Hi, and thanks for the videos, which I'm watching with interest. If 8k ever becomes a thing, with reasonable content availability, I would intend to upscale/double up to a 30ft diagonal. OK, not huge by commercial standards, but I'm blown away by my existing setup so Ive no doubt 4x screen area would be even more life affirming.
@@timalanthwaite4759 We do have a 24ft screen for the BFCC so if we can resurrect the film collectors conventions then I plan to put 4K to the test on that and see how it fares against Blu-ray. If that day ever comes then we will then all know if there is any merit to a home system of more than 4K. But if you do manage to get a 30ft setup in the meantime, I'm coming over!!!
John.
@@moviecollector5920 And you'd be very welcome. Other than Widebottom Weekend I don't get out much, but would love to side by side film and video resolutions. Regards, Tim
I'm not completely sold on 4k yet, some movies I've seen look no better than the 2k version. Sometimes I feel the studio is just re - packaging a 2k movie in 4k package. I remember when DVD went mainstream back in '97, I thought it was incredible, then Blu ray hit the market after beating out hddvd, and Blu ray was a significant improvement over DVD, you didn't have to look that hard to see the difference... I was expecting to see that type of obvious difference going from Blu ray to 4k but not so imo. Some movies yes, they look quiet a bit better than Blu ray but many the difference is very subtle. So now I watch reviews from channels like this one before I buy. Maybe I bought into the over hype of 4k. Now one more thing I do notice is that Blu ray up converted to 4k looks really good on my projector!
Blu-ray was much better than we all though prior to 4K and now with the way films are mastered into 4K, the Blu-ray using the same master has been proven to be almost as good. HDR is often the only persceptible difference. And you're right about the studios upscaling 2K video because most special effects laden movies do just that. I actually tested from a standard Blu-ray player in this video and on a home screen the difference is still imperceptible - or almost imperceptible - at times. I need a 30 foot wide screen!
A lot of DVDs back in 1997 and 1998 were copies of the LaserDisc masters so they weren't all as good as they could have been.
John.
If you sit close enough, then yes.
I'll press my face to the screen next time Kevin!
John.
@@moviecollector5920 ah that breaks the cardinal rule in our house - no one touches the screen!
@@kevinsoutham Good point!
I've been to TV stores so that statement I can say is completely wrong. images from 4K look much more natural. the grass. the skin. the tile. It is the irregularities in your skin that make your skin look natural. The details of your skin that you do not see on a 1080p TV
A good test for seeing if your player/tv combo is 'up too snuff', is the cavern night club scene in SERENITY. If the picture is dark and hard to pick out details in the background, you need a better player and tv most likely. This scene was dark on several combo's, until i got myself a Sony AF8 OLED and an OPPO 205 4K player (playing the blu ray disc) Only then did this scene show properly.
Another good test is the film ZULU on blu ray. If the faces of the actors look plasticky and false, you need to upgrade your player and tv combo. The faces now look natural on my OPPO and SONY.
Well I don't have Serenity but I have Zulu and the Super Technirama photography puts most 4K releases to shame. No plastic here. Many films should be too dark to see into the shadows - you're supposed to be peering into them. Apocalypse Now is the perfect example but I obviously don't know about Serenity having never seen it. I've no doubt my systems would be too dark for that scene you mention because I set them up to replicate film as closely as possible and that really means they're darker than most people would have them set. John.
@@moviecollector5920 That scene I mentioned in SERENITY, is really dark overall on other tv/player combo's. So much so it is really distracting not to be able to 'see' the actors properly, let alone the background of the cavern they are supposedly in. The scene was actually spoiling the film for a mate of mine, who is very fussy with things like that. He even thought the disc had a production fault on it at one point.
Not untill he saw the scene on my set up did he relax and start saving for better equipment, rather than sell the disc in the hope a better version would come out one day. With my OPPO player, it even looked good on an old Panasonic PLASMA 37" I used to use (and keep as a spare tv) TV's and players are NOT created equal, I have come to learn and you do get what you pay for, sadly for my pocket!!.
@@sirmalus5153 That's certainly food for thought Sir Malus. One thing is for sure though, videos being released today are better than when it all started with VHS years ago. Although I never really liked the low quality it was amazing to be able to purchase a complete movie so cheaply to keep and watch again and again. What I think I'm saying is that we're almost expecting too much at times today. Modern video quality is amazing and I never would have thought it would be possible to be able to project a home video in such quality in the home. Now then, you'll have to check out The Hunt For Red October on 4K disc because that one is so dark that the only reason we know Sean Connery is in it is because we can hear him! John.
Thank you for your very concise analysis of the 2K v 4K issue, and for mentioning - without entirely relying upon - the Your Mileage May Vary aspects when comparing peoples' home theatre setups. Soulds like it'll be 4K HDR where available.
Thank you for taking the time to comment Steve. Much appreciated.
John.
Hi John Is it right choice to Buy Speed on 4k disc since it's 1995 movie your suggestions please since iam having bluray now
It's over two years since I looked at Speed but fortunately I did put a review up of that disc. I can't recall exactly but I'm pretty sure the 4K is better than the Blu-ray and it damned well should be as it has the all-important HDR which is what makes a video look more like film. Take a look at my review before buying though.
John.
I've been collecting horror films, and what I've found is that it's probably the worst return for experience. Yes there are super clear images, but some are way too clear. You start noticing more flaws that used to be covered by lower quality transfers. Some other ones just feel off with how clean they are. For example night of the living dead 4k by criterion is a great remaster. Though in terms of atmosphere I kinda miss my artifacts where I was watching something that was dragged through a gravel road. Those older ones felt like you were watching something old and historic. The remaster is so clean all me and my friend could comment on is how it looked like it was just filmed with modern equipment. It lacked a lot of the old home movie feel. Some Scream Factor 4ks like the friday the 13th have similar issues. Removing too much film sound just makes it too sterile. Modern and Special Effects, action films I think benefit well from hires more than older lower budget films I guess is what I see.
That's a good summary. Personally I like a film to look like a film and Night of the Living Dead in particular is a great Super 8 feature simply because it suits the gritty look of the print that was evidently used as master material. But going back to the camera negative for many films will make them look cleaner and more like a modern video production simply because prints were not struck from the original camera negative (apart from premiere house prints and 70mm blow-ups) so they will look cleaner due to them being a first generation copy. Mass 35mm prints are struck from the internegative which itself is taken from the interpositive. The interpositive is struck from the camera negative and used for colour grading etc. so you can see that a lot of potential film grain was introduced via this process. Go back to the camera negative and it's virtually eliminated. Sometimes it's not possible though because the negative has long gone or it's faded and perished beyond viable use.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 My mom's cousins used to own a drive in theater outside of Pittsburgh. I was 9 by the the time they closed. Really regret not keeping any of the 35mm reels, but 9 year old me lacked foresight or space. They kept their copy of Night of the living dead and Dawn of the Dead though since they were extras in them. They used to show them double feature every October. I know that even for original mass 35 prints they were rough from being played for like 30 years, and had some patches from film tares; but it really was a different experience as a kid watching a horror film outdoors on a big screen around where it was filmed. I am thankful to have experienced it though because there are few people around my age who would get that experience; as their only experience had been home video transfers. I also think about how unique it is now. Like the film patch's and poops were unique to my first experience of the film and audio quality from the car stereo just will make it different from anyone else's experience who had seen a theater 35mm version.
I do greatly appreciate the work done by Criterion. When you've seen nearly every transfer of a film it really becomes apparent how much work they put into restoring films. Though like I said it suffers from a digital sterile feel that makes it too modern. The best home video experience I feel is the 40th anniversary DVD. Aspects and noise kept in make if feel more like it's how he intended it to be viewed. Though Romero also supervised the early Criterion transfer despite passing before it's release. The 40th is leagues above the 30th anniversary edition that Russo oversaw which was originally for VHS rather than DVD and had really bad extra scenes put in. The 40th though doesn't have those garbage scenes in it, and took advantage of the DVD formats quality. Not to mention it has so much extra features which is sorely missed on modern bluray and 4k. Really I think it's sad that many blu ray and 4k will spout special features on their cover, but what they mean is the bare minimum of an audio commentary and maybe the theatrical trailer. I can't think of many films that include a documentary that has about the same runtime as the film.
@@hardcorehunter7162 Now I'm going to have to find a copy of that 40th anniversary edition because I completely missed it!
Film splices, negative dust, specks of dirt and the odd scratch are all a part of film. But I did always appreciate seeing the premiere run prints taken from the negative that we used to enjoy at the top London cinemas. I think I got a bit spoilt there but I never went off Super 8 which because of its miniature size makes any bit of dust look massive upon projection. Any scratches are also enhanced due to the small size and the magnification once it's up there on the screen. It's all part of the fun though really.
We didn't really ever have drive-in theatres over here. The weather tends to rule out things like that. I did screen Night of the Living Dead in the garden about 20 years ago though and that was creepy.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 Thankfully they're not that rare, and can be found for under $10 on ebay. Drive In's are a fun experience, just harder to find these days. There are still enough in my area probably one every 45 miles. Though there are many states where they've gone extinct. Weather around pittsburgh isn't really ideal for outdoor theaters, but I guess everyone just got used to it. It's in the top 5 cities in the country for gloomy weather. It's a pretty common saying here rain or shine because I guess a lot of people from out of the area think things get canceled when it rains.
I need to ask what type of television set you are using to look at these discs on. Do you have a 4K television set? Most of us do not of course so I don’t know that we would get the full affect of a 4K disc and of course we would have to buy a 4K DVD player and they may not all be equal so perhaps you can address both of these issues for us. Like the rest of your fans I really likeYour presentation style.
Well I don't tend to watch films on television Randel but the TV we have is a Panasonic 4K HDR and its best feature is the ability to connect to TH-cam and watch TH-cam just like television. We gave up on television when we had the digital switchover about ten years ago and that caused us to analyze what we actually watched - the end result was we watched the news and that was it. The standard of TV programming has dropped even further now so we won't ever be going back. But to answer your question, I run the discs via a 4K player that cost about £150 three years ago (much cheaper now) and the display is a video projector that cost £1500 three years ago. Unless you are going to purchase a rather massive television there is not much gain from 4K but usually the colour is better thanks to High Dynamic Range (Dolby Vision is the new offering down that same avenue now and some say it is superior) and so if you are thinking of going the 4K route I think a visit to a store that can demonstrate different options is advisable. Here in the UK that would be Richer Sounds which is where most of my equipment has come from over the years. They have an Optoma 4K projector now for under £1K which might be a nice little adventure for you. Simple to use and all you need is a white wall to project onto.
I hope this helps.
John.
Also you get the Dolby Atmos sound with the 4k's so better audio emmersion. 4k all day unfortunatley now, where possible.
Dolby Atmos is on many new Blu-rays too now. But I do agree and I find I splash out on a 4K rather than a Blu-ray every time a title is available on both.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 indeed.
Murder on the orient express is a very good film and the 1974 version is my favorite. I have also seen Hercule Poirot - Murder on the orient express (TV episode 2010) and it's not as good as the movies but still worth a watch. It's a different take on the original story.
I too like the 1974 film but I never really got on with the television series. I don't know why. I hope the 'Death on the Nile' follow-up to 'Murder on the Orient Express' later this year looks as good as 'Orient Express'. Maybe we'll all get the chance to see it in genuine 70mm film projection. What a treat that should be.
You ought to get Matilda 4k (1997 and only in steelbook). It looks amazing on anybody's TV. It only takes 10 days to get it from America.
I've never actually seen that film but if I recall correctly, it stars the same little girl from the 1994 remake of Miracle on 34th Street and she is brilliant. John.
I was very lucky to see Dunkirk in 70mm! But now the theater I saw it in has sadly closed.
That is sad. I think a few cinemas have gone during this Covid-19 disaster. John.
There is a great TH-cam channel that does short comparisons of movie releases showing comparative clips of each one in various releases; DVD, Bluray, 4K and variations/releases in between. Why is it I find the first Bluray releases from the early 2000s almost always more compelling than the DVDs before or any release after?? It seems like each iteration is just someone messinga around with the contrast buttons, and as for 4k well............one comaprison showed how you could now see the sweat on Tom Hank's cheeks in the Saving Private Ryan opening scenes. But was that the point of the movie? Would that make you cry more at the end? I sometimes think we can become overly wrapped up in technical perfection when the product is about emotional involvement.
Oh yes I noticed for a movie expert your choice of Bluray player was quite simple and restrained. Can you recommend me a good one to buy on a budget, as I would like to start swapping some of my favourite movies to Bluray now. Bear in mind I hate most modern films and all my favourites tend to be made before the blue and orange hell inflicted upon us since 2003.
It was a little surprising to me how little perceptible difference there is sometimes from Blu-ray to 4K but we're viewing on tiny home screens so I think that's the limiting factor. Once I've got a 30 foot screen installed I'm sure I'll see a bigger difference!
As for a Blu-ray player I stick with Panasonic because I remember all the problems with the format when it started and Panasonic were the only manufacturer who seemed to get to grips with it. Other than that, I prefer to have a player with all the audio connections on the back rather than just an HDMI which is not much use a lot of the time. It is possible to get little devices that break up the sound into different connectors so it's maybe not the biggest consideration but around £100 for a Panasonic Blu-ray with an optical audio connection so you can attach it to an older home cinema amplifier/receiver is probably what's required. For 4K it's a bit more of a minefield and more expensive so let me know if you plan to go down that route. John.
What panasonic 4k player you got john, It looks like Panasonic dP UB820 👍🏻, I have the UB450 but thinking of upgrading maybe
It's the UB400 Ron. Optical sound output was why I got that model.
@@moviecollector5920 brilliant picture quality these panasonics 👍🏻
Most people just fool themselves as to quality of the format. When I was in the Army I took and passed the military flight physical which leans heavily on vision quality - In fact I had 20/10 vision(very rare. Point is 99% of y'all will never be able to see what I see (even so called experts). My conclusion - This guy is right - what y'all see has higher quality is mostly higher contrasts. That's it.
Interestingly Sue, up until a few years ago I had 20/10 vision (getting old now) so you may have something there.
John.
You can probably see much more than what is in the image information in the movie
If you look at a snow pile 30 meters away, you can see a lot of details. If you try to take the picture with a mobile phone even if it has 20 megapixels, the details will at your best look blurry. NOTE without optical zoom
The biggest problem I've seen with a lot of 4K reviews is the use of DNR, making some 4K releases that were shot on film looked waxy, smeared, or "digital".
I still don't have a 4K TV despite it being 2023, but HDR being the main factor for an upgrade makes sense, IF the original source hasn't been "remastered" to look like it's been scrubbed of film grain (different story for digitally shot movies, obviously). Also, until I have a room that's big enough for a TV over 60", I probably won't be able to see a major difference in detail compared to 1080p/2K without sitting uncomfortably close.
Because I've been getting quite a few comments from people in the industry and also learning quite a lot since starting this channel, I'm able to confirm that all 4K disc releases (and I believe Blu-rays too) have a certain amount of image noise reduction because scanning a film exacerbates the appearance of film grain. The reason some of them look completely devoid of grain and some have the side effect of the waxy appearance is because someone has had the idea of turning a film into a 3D abomination to generate a new stream of income. Predator Blu-ray and Terminator 2: Judgment Day are the most widely known titles in this regard but Star Wars was going to go through the same process and so that was 'scrubbed' in preparation for a 3D release but it never happened. That is why the 4K disc release of Star Wars has a sterile look and can be difficult to watch as a result. But overall, these problems are few and if you have a look at a video I did when I chose what I consider to be the ten best 4K's in my collection then you'll get an idea for what is good and perhaps start collecting some of those first.
As for getting a big television, better than that would be a video projector as you won't be restricted by the size of the box then and more by the size of the wall you'll be projecting onto. With the best discs, the bigger they are projected, the better they look as they still look great but have an even bigger impact. It's also a lot of fun playing at cinemas.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 Didn't even think of that - I thought it was more to do with the younger generation not wanting to see "grainy" footage, and that they wouldn't think something was wrong with the image - or companies thinking 4K = looking "new/modern", but that makes sense too. But... I've also seen this happen with animation, especially anime on Blu-ray, even in just 2K on regular Blu-ray release.
And yes, a projector is on my wishlist.... someday! haha. I need the right space and the right wall.
Can you get true blacks from a projector like you can from an OLED? I know there will be a difference, also depending on the wall-screen used, but still.
@@polygon.fiction6514 It is the 3D fiasco that's caused the worst excesses of image noise reduction but my opinion is that someone in charge should put a halt on the same master file being used to issue a standard Blu-ray of 4K disc. Some people do like the more sterile look though so maybe it's not quite the stupidity that I think it is.
When it comes to video projection there is a lot of nonsense being said about what you can or can't - or perhaps, should or should not do - and it's all a load of cobblers. Paint a flat white wall and you're sorted. Put some black velvet masking around the projected image to fool the human eye into thinking the contrast is better than it really is and you've created a cinema in miniature in the home. Most 4K projectors are very good but I would never want one resembling the look of an OLED telly which I find a little too fake to look at. I've always set all my equipment up to resemble the look of film as closely as possible. I prefer to project onto a wall but because of our present screening room I'm using our ten foot roll down screen that is usually in the living room. I hope to get things back to normal soon though so it will be interesting to see if I can perceive any difference between a white screen and a white wall. If you do ever get a projector, try not to turn the colour up too high as many people seem to think overly rich, fake looking colours produce a better image. When you do then get an exceptionally colourful 4K disc the impact could be somewhat lost. The Ten Commandments is the best example I've seen for this.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 A year later, and I now have a 4K OLED, and HDR plus the true blacks can be pretty amazing. It's nice to at least have the option of 4K, even though most 1080p still looks excellent. Although, I've noticed that the "right" amount of DNR - just slightly (like you said) to avoid the overabundance of grain, can still look nice without loss of detail or grain altogether. It's sad how many movies have been "scrubbed", even before a 4K "restoration". On the flipside, sometimes a new 4K restoration means correcting a subpar older transfer used on an older standard blu-ray release.
basically the way i look at it is this..if your TV is 43" or under then blu ray & new release DVD's are fine
43 inches is only just over 3 feet wide so most things should look rather good on it. For the best Blu-rays and 4K discs you really need about ten feet wide to be able to pick out the best. I'll get there eventually and also hope to show some on our convention's 24 foot wide 'Scope screen one day too.
John.
When I experimented with Blu Ray conversion to DVD format I noticed that the DVD had more quality potential than we usually were presented with. Recently I got the film "Another Round" on DVD instead of Blueray. You really had to doubt that it was "Only DVD" as the quality was premium. It seems to me that DVD has a quality in color and contrast that for instance streaming is lacking behind. Do you have any comments on DVD media of recent?
Yes Jens, I too have watched recently released DVDs and a few years ago I'd have sworn they were Blu-rays. 'Tommy's Honour' is probably the best I've seen in this regard. It all comes down to the master material so the better the master the better the end product. A side effect of the 4K market is that the studios are going back to the best master of all and this usually means the original camera negative. In terms of 35mm negatives, only 70mm blow-up prints and premiere prints (I think) ever came from the original camera negative so there weren't too many of us who saw film at its best. This is why the latest releases are now so good and why the older films - particularly those shot on large format negative stock such as 70mm or VistaVision - usually look better than the newer films that have been shot on video.
I think you're the first person to mention this and my channel is a year old in a few days. Well done.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 Thank you for the "Badge"! When HD started to come about, nobody were interested at first. I was very interested, so I had to go to an American news group to try and discuss HD material. I even started a group called AVCHD. This was the way I could make my own BR compatible material. Some of the discs I made does not play anymore. I bought an entire series on DVD, and transferred the original to a Blu-ray disc.
Now I think that "Streaming" will conquer most of the Movie franchise. But I still buy both Blu-ray and 4K. I have just invested in an Epson EF-12 projector. I love it so much I could even cry by thinking about it!;-)
@@jenserikbech I worked at a the ITV governing body when I was starting out in the world and they developed C-MAC for the then forthcoming British Satellite Broadcasting. This was 1200 or 1250 lines and 16x9. That was the 1980s but no one was interesting and Sky killed it off pronto. I remember it as better in some respects than the present UHD as it perfected image clarity so much that presenters could wear stripy shirts and ties. Yes, that sort of thing is still a bit of an issue on video!
John.
Very interesting video. Could you offer any observations on disc rot (particularly with modern blu-ray discs)? PS happy to hear from anyone who has a disc library who may have experience. Thanks in advance.
I've only come across it on laser disc so far Max. It's the glue that binds the disc layers together where it eats through one or more of those layers. Some makes of disc are more prone to it than others. Something I have to be wary of because I do release DVDs and Blu-rays of my own historic British car documentaries and Falcon, JVC and Sony are the only manufacturers who have seen their products survive long term (100 year plus) soak tests.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 Thanks for the perspective. Very informative :) Appreciate it
@@moviecollector5920 I never considered it may be manufacturer-specific
@@maxanderson9187 Over time we may ascertain that specific disc labs are producing discs that are more prone to laser rot/disc rot so let's see how it develops and then perhaps we'll being to know which titles in our collections could be in danger.
John.
Excellent video mate. Im also into Rover cars, had a 216 gsi with honda engine and it always took me home. Kept it for 10 years. Dont have many 4k films, more blu rays but recently purchased 1917 and Spielbergs war of the worlds from hmv on their 2 for £30. Both very good but 1917 was excellent and worth getting. I also got the revenant 4k free with my panasonic ub800 4k player, highly recommend that film as well!
Funnily enough I just purchased 1917 in the same HMV deal as well and will really look forward to it now you've said how good it is. Got War of the Worlds a month or so back and have Revenant on Blu-ray.
That Rover double disc has sold rather well but ten years ago it would have sold three times as many. That's the way the world is going I'm afraid. I'm being pressed to cover the Rover R8 series next which is the whole of the 200 range from beginning to end Take a look at www.triumphdvd.co.uk and you'll get an idea of what I do. Yes, I'm a British classic car enthusiast too and it's taken us across America to interview all the important people still with us and well as all over the UK. Been quite a ride.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 Thanks, I will take a look at the website👍 As they say, great minds think alike😃. You wont be disappointed with 1917, much better than Dunkirk, it looked so good on my Oled screen. My projector is only 1080p full hd so unable to project 4k.
Sadly I cannot remember the movie, maybe it was SW TLJ, maybe, but when I went to my local theater a few years ago, they had the same title playing in both a regular theater and IMAX, and I swear, to my senses, the regular theater both looked and sounded better. I paid for an IMAX ticket so I stayed in the IMAX theater, but I truly believe the regular showing looked better.
Sounds like they were screening the same video presentation in both studios. I don't know that but it sounds like it to me. Film prints running across multiple studios were often the same print running through long tunnels into different booths and projectors and only a few minutes apart between each screening so it would make sense that a duplicate of the video they downloaded would be used twice or more.
John.
If they would release Last of the Mohicans (1992) in 4K I'd buy a 4K television. I saw that movie in the theater and it's one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen. Some of the scenes are just breathtaking. There is a lot to what you say about diminishing returns as technology moves on. I remember the HUGE jump from VHS to DVD. It was astounding. Then we got Blu Ray which is noticeably better but the jump isn't as significant. Now 4K looks a little better but it's not enough to make you want to go crazy over it.
I agree about Last of the Mohicans. I also agree with your summary of where we are with modern technology. In other words ninline2000, we are in complete agreement.
John.
We won't be getting a 4k of that film since Disney isn't interested in restoring such old films.
I've recently seen your posts and find them really interesting. In this particular post I think you referred to changing the HD settings via the appropriate button on the Panny remote. This operation does not work on DV discs. Did you mean just non DV discs? This is sometimes a problem in itself for people with other makes of player (i.e. Sony) as not all disc covers give the HDR info.
Thank you David. I think that's the HDR button I was pointing out but it turns out it's not on the first generation Panasonic 4K players so you have to go through the menu system to put the HDR brightness up and down in those. I expect it's the same for other makes of player such as Sony. It does only function when a 4K disc with HDR is in the player so with any other disc if it's pressed nothing happens.
John.
Hello from Japan!! Love your channel✨
I also love your Star Wars sweatshirt!! Would you happen to know where we can get one?
Thank you Super Collector Clark. I think the Star Wars sweatshirt was a EuroDisney purchase at Star Tours in 1992. If I could find somewhere still selling the exact same shirt I'd buy another but alas, I don't know of anyone selling them today. John.
Gemini Man wasn't 120fps (60 per eye) - It depended on the hardware the theaters had. It was 120fps on supported hardware, 60fps otherwise, and some theaters only played it at the standard 24fps.
Of course there were 2D and 3D showings. 3D theater screens show both left/right images at the same time.
Thank you for trying to clear that up James. I wonder if 120fps made it look ever worse or actually improved it. But I can well imagine how good the 3D would have been even if it wasn't really a film for some of us old fogeys!
John.
tbh I can't see the difference between 60 and 120, but 60/24 is a huge difference.
I hate that we're forever stuck with stuttery juddery 24fps because people think high frame rate makes it "look fake".
The movie itself wasn't great but i appreciated the effort with the frame rate.
I’m 70 and loved Gemini Man in 3D Blu-ray.
It looks terrible in 2D Gary but I think the whole 120fps format surely means that there were 60fps for each eye. As a one-off novelty at a cinema in 3D using that approach it must have been memorable. I've seen liquid crystal 3D on an Omnimax screen and whilst the documentary showing was rather dull I've never forgotten it. Gemini Man would probably be similar and therefore unforgettable. But in 2D, forget it!
John.
Also noticed you seem to be a fan of "Prince of Darkness" I would strongly suggest getting a 4K copy of that. What they did with that film is mind blowing.
If I haven't answered this already Darren (I thought I had but maybe I pressed ESC instead of ENTER). I do have Prince of Darkness and actually put a review up. One of my favourite John Carpenter films.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 Like wise now I only just watched it first time on 4K in DTS:X on my 140" screen. Perhaps best I watched it the first time on this format vs the previous version. I am watching your video now on it.
@@darrenorange2982 Apart from at the cinema Darren, it has never looked so good.
John.
4K Bluray has so much potential, but sadly like 90% of releases are just 2k upscales. As you said, some 1080p Blurays look as good as 4k - Manchester by the sea for example. But HDR on an OLED TV is unbeatable
I think we're mainly just paying for HDR MrBrax. But sometimes it really does make a significant difference - 'Prince of Darkness' being a good example.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 Yeah, quite good HDR on some discs in fact. Industry is finally starting to move to native 4K too, hope that keeps up.
@@MrBrax I suppose that will happen as computers get faster because it's all down to the time it takes to render the finished film. Good news that they're moving in that direction.
For dark HDR scenes yes, not for brightness. OLED is poor compared to a QLED in that regard lol
@@Tommylad99876 why do you need a brighter TV than an OLED?