A Few Words About A few words about...™ 3:10 to Yuma (2007) -- in 4k UHD Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

I bought this release, and spent a little time last night going back and forth between the 4K UHD disc and the Blu-ray. Personally I found the 4K HDR presentation to be murky, dull, and a bit soft compared to the 1080p Blu. I doubt that either of these discs is representative of how the film looked in the theater. I was hoping the 4K version would be an improvement, and to my eyes I can't say that it is. Very disappointing.

Interesting since you and I have the same display. My copy arrives today, but I won't have time to look at it today. Perhaps this weekend.

I guess RAH's recommendation isn't going over well with some of us.

 

[dpippel]

Ha! Let us know what you think when you get a chance to take a look Robert.

 

[Tino]

We'll I have the same display as you two and as I said before I thought, like RAH, it looked terrific. Strange. But hey, not all eyes are equal.

 

[Tino]

I agree with you that generally it is very problematic to compare transfers based on pics taken from a screen due to all the variables that can introduce unwanted differences. It's just that in this particular case with a poster knowing what he's doing I think the difference was authentic and it turned out to reflect the grain reduction correctly (see Mr. Harris last post).

I'm curious Michael. Have you actually seen the 4K disc or are you basing all your arguments on what you've read?

 

[Michel_Hafner]

My opinion was/is based on the published stills and postings (and over 20 years of experience in matters home cinema and image quality since the days of Laserdisc). I'm not buying discs just to prove a point if I'm convinced they have the kind of manipulation applied I don't like, especially given viable alternatives I already own.

 

[Tino]

Interesting. More power to ya. I've been into home cinema just as long. I personally like to judge for myself with my own eyes. I've learned that lesson countless times in similar circumstances.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Interesting. More power to ya. I've been into home cinema just as long. I personally like to judge for myself with my own eyes. I've learned that lesson countless times in similar circumstances.

What circumstances? Pics showing grain removal and the grain was there after all? I guess not. But the case that people say it looks "bad" and you like it is quite possible. What we like and dislike is personal preference. I'm pretty sure if I watched the disc I would find it quite watchable nonetheless. But what's the point if I have a nice BD and no interest in boosting sales of titles with that kind of processing (wrong feedback to the studio)? I bought all Bourne discs but the first for the same reason, and Iron Man 2+3 but not one, for the same reason.

 

[Robert Crawford]

It's time to agree to disagree and move on. How people make decisions to spend their monies on video product is their personal business.

 

[Tino]

What circumstances? Pics showing grain removal and the grain was there after all? I guess not. But the case that people say it looks "bad" and you like it is quite possible. What we like and dislike is personal preference. I'm pretty sure if I watched the disc I would find it quite watchable nonetheless. But what's the point if I have a nice BD and no interest in boosting sales of titles with that kind of processing (wrong feedback to the studio)? I bought all Bourne discs but the first for the same reason, and Iron Man 2+3 but not one, for the same reason.

Easy friend. I was talking about circumstances of MY experiences. For instance reading about a terrible looking blu Ray according to some screenshots then actually seeing with my own eyes that the bluray was fine. It's happened many times here with people complaining about something they haven't seen. I like to be my own judge.

 

[Tino]

Ha! Let us know what you think when you get a chance to take a look Robert.

Yeah. So far it's 1-1 in the LG OLED65E6 club. You're the tiebreaker.

 

[DalekFlay]

Easy friend. I was talking about circumstances of MY experiences. For instance reading about a terrible looking blu Ray according to some screenshots then actually seeing with my own eyes that the bluray was fine. It's happened many times here with people complaining about something they haven't seen. I like to be my own judge.

I think most people know whether they approve of DNR or not, they don't have to buy every disc to see for themselves. I find that an odd argument. Of course some will be fine with it, some will even prefer it (there's a reason the process is sometimes used despite many enthusiasts crying foul every time). However people against it know to stay away.

There is acceptable DNR of course. Aliens, The Lowry Bond remasters. Those were new remasters that improved over the old in every way though, so it's a different matter. Here the BD shows more grain and detail, which many of us know right off the bat we don't accept. I hope you enjoy your disc though, since you're obviously of a different mindset.

 

[Tino]

Never mind.

 

[Tino]

And for the record, I am no fan of excessive DNR. However in the case of this disk I don't see a problem.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

And here some comparisons between the BD and the UHD (2K DI filmed out and rescanned, asinine approach when the result is like this):
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/134711/picture:0

 

[Michel_Hafner]

And here some comparisons between the BD and the UHD (2K DI filmed out and rescanned, asinine approach when the result is like this):
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/134711/picture:0

That site is very unreliable. Content disappears just like that.
See here instead: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=14910114&postcount=537
BD:

UHD

The UHD is blurry compared to the BD! I give that image a generous 2 instead of a 5 like Mr. Harris. One of the worst UHDs released so far concerning spatial detail and proper film texture.

 

[old mole]

3:10 to Yuma. Probably worst UHD on the market concerning detail and sharpness.
See: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=14910114&postcount=537

 

[old mole]

Couldn't Disagree more. Just watched it yesterday, and thought it was great: colors, shadows, sharpness all improvement over my Blu-ray. Apparently the several reviewers I read before purchasing said the same. You need to check your Blu-ray player and/or TV if you are not seeing what we are seeing. I couldn't be happier with my UHD copy.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Couldn't Disagree more. Just watched it yesterday, and thought it was great: colors, shadows, sharpness all improvement over my Blu-ray. Apparently the several reviewers I read before purchasing said the same. You need to check your Blu-ray player and/or TV if you are not seeing what we are seeing. I couldn't be happier with my UHD copy.

Did you even bother to check out the corresponding stills from both editions? How can your UHD be sharper than the BD if the stills show the exact opposite?

 

[Tino]

Did you even bother to check out the corresponding stills from both editions? How can your UHD be sharper than the BD if the stills show the exact opposite?

Have you seen both and compared the two.? Or are you just relying on those stills?

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Have you seen both and compared the two.? Or are you just relying on those stills?

I have the BD. For the UHD I rely on the stills (I don't buy such inferior UHDs). Are you saying there is something amiss with the stills? I don't think so. The guy who did them is known for providing tons of high quality stills for many comparisons. So what is your explanation for the BD beating the UHD in every single still concerning sharpness/detail?