What's new

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
14,541
Real Name
Robert Harris
Stanley Kubrick's 1971 A Clockwork Orange was the film that nearly destroyed the fun, swinging image of London, as acclaimed by other films, and nearly destroyed the nation's tourist trade.

In Warner's new 4k UHD, it's wonderfully film-like. A terrific release.

Nothing more need be said.

Image – 5

Audio – 5 (DTS-HD MA 5.1)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Plays nicely with projectors - Absolutely

Makes use of and works well in 4k - 3.5

Very Highly Recommended

RAH
 
Last edited:

JoshZ

Screenwriter
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
1,016
Location
Boston
Real Name
Joshua Zyber
In Warner's new 4k UHD, it's wonderfully film-like. A terrific release.

Nothing more need be said.

I think it's worth saying that the prior Blu-ray release was decidedly not film-like, and this 4K remaster (which I believe screened at Cannes way back in 2011) has been very long awaited on home video.
 

Yeoman007

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
81
Location
AL, USA
Real Name
Rick
I don't have a 4K TV so I'm wondering if the included Blu-ray is from the new 4K master or is it the same as the older Blu-rays?
 

Lord Dalek

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Messages
5,436
Real Name
Joel Henderson
Lovely product, but a Blu-ray would have sufficed for most people. There simply is nowhere near true 4k information on the negative.

Or as we like calling it outide of the Country Club: The "Y'allz Suckered!" Score.
 

JoshZ

Screenwriter
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
1,016
Location
Boston
Real Name
Joshua Zyber
The included BD is the one from the 40th anniversary release in 2011 - NOT the disc from 2007.

But the 2011 release was the same old master, as I recall. This was controversial, as the Blu-ray was released after the 4K restoration had played at Cannes, yet did not use that restoration*.

(*Before RAH chastises me, I am using "restoration" as the promotional term bandied about at the time. Whether the film was really restored or just re-scanned is not something I can answer.)
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
14,541
Real Name
Robert Harris
But the 2011 release was the same old master, as I recall. This was controversial, as the Blu-ray was released after the 4K restoration had played at Cannes, yet did not use that restoration*.

(*Before RAH chastises me, I am using "restoration" as the promotional term bandied about at the time. Whether the film was really restored or just re-scanned is not something I can answer.)
never
 

Lord Dalek

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Messages
5,436
Real Name
Joel Henderson
Randy Miller III at blu-ray.com says the front three channels in the 5.1 mix are way overboosted giving the film a harsh sound. Care to comment?
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
21,751
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
The included BD is the one from the 40th anniversary release in 2011 - NOT the disc from 2007.

But the 2011 release was the same old master, as I recall. This was controversial, as the Blu-ray was released after the 4K restoration had played at Cannes, yet did not use that restoration*.

(*Before RAH chastises me, I am using "restoration" as the promotional term bandied about at the time. Whether the film was really restored or just re-scanned is not something I can answer.)

That’s correct, the 2011 disc is the same underlying master as the 2007 one. The big difference is audio was DTS-HD MA in 2011 vs PCM on the 2007, but it’s the exact same mix and those are both lossless formats so the result is the same.

It is disappointing that Warner stopped offering remastered BDs for these top selling titles.
 

Blu Eye

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 17, 2020
Messages
214
Real Name
Carl
Lovely product, but a Blu-ray would have sufficed for most people. There simply is nowhere near true 4k information on the negative.

Is it the type of film it was shot on or the use of filters or both or neither?

I think I will purchase this 4k release regardless as I don't have the previously released Blu Ray versions and many seem to be unhappy with the results of those releases anyway.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
14,541
Real Name
Robert Harris
Is it the type of film it was shot on or the use of filters or both or neither?

I think I will purchase this 4k release regardless as I don't have the previously released Blu Ray versions and many seem to be unhappy with the results of those releases anyway.
Not a clue. The 4k is wonderful and well-priced.

I’m not suggesting that it not be purchased, just that the overall resolution probably isn’t more than 3k.
 

Lord Dalek

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Messages
5,436
Real Name
Joel Henderson
I dunno 2780x1620 in a 3840x2160 wrapper seems acceptable all things considered.
 
Last edited:

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
14,541
Real Name
Robert Harris
3k is still 960x540 more than what we have now.
But in no way noticeable from a normal seating distance.

4k seems to be taking on a life of its own, and in most cases more sizzle than reality.

A newly produced standard issue Blu would probably look just (or almost as good) as the new 4k.

4k is meant to be something special.
 

Blu Eye

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 17, 2020
Messages
214
Real Name
Carl
Not a clue. The 4k is wonderful and well-priced.

I’m not suggesting that it not be purchased, just that the overall resolution probably isn’t more than 3k.

I'm not trying to be funny but how do you know the resolution isn't more than 3k without knowing the type of film used?

Can you observe this by just watching the movie?

A nosy parker wishes to know these things.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
348,745
Messages
4,855,352
Members
142,371
Latest member
Software Testing Training
Recent bookmarks
0
Top