A Few Words About A few words about…™ Star Wars: A New Hope — in 4k UHD Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

I don't have the UHD Blu-ray disc, but I noted moments of aggressive digital processing (frozen grain, edge halos) in the transfer when I streamed from Disney+. I'll have to scan through it again to get time codes.

You're aware that streaming is more highly compressed

 

[dpippel]

I don't have the UHD Blu-ray disc, but I noted moments of aggressive digital processing (frozen grain, edge halos) in the transfer when I streamed from Disney+. I'll have to scan through it again to get time codes.

Apples and oranges. There are far too many variables involved with streaming to make comparing what's on Disney+ to the 4K UHD disc releases a valid exercise.

 

[Tino]

I don't have the UHD Blu-ray disc, but I noted moments of aggressive digital processing (frozen grain, edge halos) in the transfer when I streamed from Disney+. I'll have to scan through it again to get time codes.

No offense but this thread is about the UHD disc. As Doug said apples and oranges.

 

[JoshZ]

You're aware that streaming is more highly compressed

Apples and oranges. There are far too many variables involved with streaming to make comparing what's on Disney+ to the 4K UHD disc releases a valid exercise.

See earlier post from Michel:

Reviews for all 3 original Star Wars films are rather bad over at blu-ray.com. Way too much and obvious grain processing, frozen grain, even sharpening halos at times.

Sounds like the same thing I saw on streaming, which looked more like transfer problems than compression problems. The frozen grain had the signature look of the old Lowry Digital grain management that was an issue with the earlier Blu-rays.

 

[JoshZ]

No offense but this thread is about the UHD disc. As Doug said apples and oranges.

It's more like green apples vs. red apples. The disc and streaming come from the same master, just compressed differently. The compression may account for some differences, but should not look radically different. Problems in the underlying master will be visible no matter what format you watch it on.

 

[dpippel]

It's more like green apples vs. red apples. The disc and streaming come from the same master, just compressed differently. The compression may account for some differences, but should not look radically different. Problems in the underlying master will be visible no matter what format you watch it on.

As I mentioned, there are way too many variables to critically compare the two. Also, since we're mentioning reviews, Bill Hunt at The Digital Bits has reviewed all the disc releases and compared several of them to the Disney+ streaming versions. In every case he says the disc looks noticeably better. I'm not saying there aren't issues, but let's approach this scientifically.

Let us know when you get a chance to look at the 4K disc release.

 

[Tino]

It's more like green apples vs. red apples. The disc and streaming come from the same master, just compressed differently. The compression may account for some differences, but should not look radically different. Problems in the underlying master will be visible no matter what format you watch it on.

^^^What Doug said!

 

[Tino]

Let us know when you get a chance to look at the 4K disc release.

Bingo!

 

[Osato]

Thanks Robert! I always appreciate your thoughts on films!

 

[Camper]

So if it's not the version some people prefer they give it a pass.
Looks like the studios will soon give physical media a pass and we can all enjoy streaming or our old copies on old formats. Between not having a perfect transfer and not being the exact version it sounds like this won't be great seller.
Studio wii probably just (wrongly) assume the market for pysical is nearly gone.
"Star Wars on UHD 4K didn't sell?"

 

[Tino]

See earlier post from Michel

And like you...he hasn’t actually seen the disc either.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Not to offend, but I’m not referencing this as serious cinema.

What does this mean? That movies that aren't "serious" can be mucked with?

Aren't you the guy who restored "My Fair Lady"? Is that "serious cinema" but "Star Wars" isn't?

 

[Dave H]

I watched this last night (JVC UHD projector at 124" on a scope screen sitting about 9.5 feet back. System well calibrated and tone mapping done with Panasonic 820).

Prior to watching the disc, I saw a number of screencaps and thought "ugh". In fact, that is why I didn't even purchase right off the bat because I was unimpressed by what I saw on these.

On any rate, I decided to go forward with the disc.

It absolutely surpassed my expectations. I was blown away by the disc. The mount of detail was absolutely staggering compared to any other way I've seen this movie before. Colors were amazingly spot on mirroring the original look. Shadows and highlights superb.

I do think there was probably some very mild grain reduction applied and even a very tiny bit of EE, but in motion, I didn't even really notice it because the image still looks natural enough and there is just a ton of detail and all of the other PQ benefits I mentioned. If these are issues, they really are not (to me).

The audio is absolutely impressive as well.

Wonderful presentation.

Give the disc a chance under "normal" or your typical viewing conditions. I think you'll be very pleased.

 

[lark144]

Mr. Harris should probably speak for himself, but I think what he means by writing STAR WARS "isn't serious cinema" isn't to denigrate it as a poorly made film, but rather is focusing on the fact that it's been digitally altered and rejiggered and degrained and messed with so much, that at this point it seems beside the point to talk about whether it looks like film because it isn't film. Also, Mr. Harris, as opposed to the digitization that Disney is doing to their classic animated features which he abhors, seems to be ok about the electronic look for the middle STAR WARS trilogy, floating grain and all. I also think that by Mr. Harris saying that STAR WARS is great "popular entertainment" isn't intended to put the films down, but rather to differentiate them from something like MY FAIR LADY, which is also great popular entertainment, but MY FAIR LADY also has specific cinematic qualities which enhance the film, and which STAR WARS may have had initially, but now no longer does, as it's been digitized to death, so all one really needs is a decent clean image, which apparently the 4K
provides.

Anyway, that's my take on Mr. Harris' statement. It's possible I'm wrong, but if that's the case, I'm sure he will respond.

 

[Dave H]

Star Wars is not serious cinema compared to The Godfather. Lawrence of Arabia. The likes of these.

But this movie (and maybe Empire) is the greatest 'sci-fi-fantasy-opera-action-adventure' of all time.

 

[TravisR]

Star Wars is not serious cinema compared to The Godfather. Lawrence of Arabia. The likes of these.

That's how I took it too.

 

[Robert Harris]

Mr. Harris should probably speak for himself, but I think what he means by writing STAR WARS "isn't serious cinema" isn't to denigrate it as a poorly made film, but rather is focusing on the fact that it's been digitally altered and rejiggered and degrained and messed with so much, that at this point it seems beside the point to talk about whether it looks like film because it isn't film. Also, Mr. Harris, as opposed to the digitization that Disney is doing to their classic animated features which he abhors, seems to be ok about the electronic look for the middle STAR WARS trilogy, floating grain and all. I also think that by Mr. Harris saying that STAR WARS is great "popular entertainment" isn't intended to put the films down, but rather to differentiate them from something like MY FAIR LADY, which is also great popular entertainment, but MY FAIR LADY also has specific cinematic qualities which enhance the film, and which STAR WARS may have had initially, but now no longer does, as it's been digitized to death, so all one really needs is a decent clean image, which apparently the 4K
provides.

Anyway, that's my take on Mr. Harris' statement. It's possible I'm wrong, but if that's the case, I'm sure he will respond.

Bingo!

I watched a bit of two other Star Wars films this evening, followed by Tin Cup in its entirety.

Not fighting the Star Wars fight.

Some shots in Empire appear quite beautiful, with fine details in some long shots taking advantage of the 4k resolution.

And then there are shots with what I presume are either plates or cardboard cutouts in the foreground, which looked fine on film.

Now, with grain reduced or removed they harken back to a Blu-ray that I rather dislike. Snow White - a 1937 animated feature that no longer works for me, because when cells are held, without grain, to homogenize and support the image, they appear akin to postcards.

Same thing with some shots in Empire.

So, no, the Star Wars entertainments - and marvelous entertainments they still are - are no longer cinema to me.

Just wonderfully entertaining, beautifully produced widgets.

As to Tin Cup, a very entertaining film, that holds up nicely, and still looks like cinema. A few too many minutes in the first hour, but works, regardless.

 

[lark144]

Bingo!

I watched a bit of two other Star Wars films this evening, followed by Tin Cup in its entirety.

Not fighting the Star Wars fight.

Some shots in Empire appear quite beautiful, with fine details in some long shots taking advantage of the 4k resolution.

And then there are shots with what I presume are either plates or cardboard cutouts in the foreground, which looked fine on film.

Now, with grain reduced or removed they harken back to a Blu-ray that I rather dislike. Snow White - a 1937 animated feature that no longer works for me, because when cells are held, without grain, to homogenize and support the image, they appear akin to postcards.

Same thing with some shots in Empire.

So, no, the Star Wars entertainments - and marvelous entertainments they still are - are no longer cinema to me.

Just wonderfully entertaining, beautifully produced widgets.

As to Tin Cup, a very entertaining film, that holds up nicely, and still looks like cinema. A few too many minutes in the first hour, but works, regardless.

Thanks Mr. Harris. Never saw Tin Cup. Guess I'll have to put that on my to see list.

I can't say that SNOW WHITE is no longer cinema, because I still think it's one of the greatest films ever made. But yes, the most recent Blu-ray, which I own, is an abomination. I tried to watch it a few months ago, and it was not a pleasurable experience. I mean, there were bits and pieces that still looked lovely, but every time Snow White to started sing, her lips would get smeary, and move from left to right, as if they were possessed by an hostile life form. That's in addition to many of the the problematic cells stripped of grain, which looked to me like crumpled paper. It was more funeral than I anticipated, like looking at a corpse of someone you once loved, and finding very little there that was at all familiar. I don't know if I can do it again. And now they have the Fox library. Oy vey!

 

[Tino]

Mr. Harris should probably speak for himself, but I think what he means by writing STAR WARS "isn't serious cinema" isn't to denigrate it as a poorly made film, but rather is focusing on the fact that it's been digitally altered and rejiggered and degrained and messed with so much, that at this point it seems beside the point to talk about whether it looks like film because it isn't film. Also, Mr. Harris, as opposed to the digitization that Disney is doing to their classic animated features which he abhors, seems to be ok about the electronic look for the middle STAR WARS trilogy, floating grain and all. I also think that by Mr. Harris saying that STAR WARS is great "popular entertainment" isn't intended to put the films down, but rather to differentiate them from something like MY FAIR LADY, which is also great popular entertainment, but MY FAIR LADY also has specific cinematic qualities which enhance the film, and which STAR WARS may have had initially, but now no longer does, as it's been digitized to death, so all one really needs is a decent clean image, which apparently the 4K
provides.

Anyway, that's my take on Mr. Harris' statement. It's possible I'm wrong, but if that's the case, I'm sure he will respond.

Have you actually viewed the Star Wars UHD?

 

[Robert Crawford]

Man, I got to pull out my 2009 Snow White Blu-ray as I don't remember it looking that terrible. My last viewing was on a Panny plasma so I need to watch it again on one of my LG OLED displays.