UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ A Clockwork Orange -- in 4k UHD Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[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

 

[JoshZ]

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.

 

[usrunnr]

"Makes use of and works well in 4k - 3.5"

More information, please, Mr. Harris.

 

[Robert Harris]

"Makes use of and works well in 4k - 3.5"

More information, please, Mr. Harris.

Lovely product, but a Blu-ray would have sufficed for most people. There simply is nowhere near true 4k information on the negative.

 

[Yeoman007]

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?

 

[Jeff Robertson]

Looking forward to this. Always thought the Blu-Ray had a low-res look to it, like an upscaled DVD.

 

[Lord Dalek]

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.

 

[Jeffrey D]

Looking forward to this. Always thought the Blu-Ray had a low-res look to it, like an upscaled DVD.

I affectionately call the existing BluRay monochromatic mush. Ordered from Amazon, and looking forward to watching the newer transfer.

 

[Jeff Robertson]

 

[JoshZ]

Looking forward to this. Always thought the Blu-Ray had a low-res look to it, like an upscaled DVD.

The old Blu-ray had quite a bit of DNR.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

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?

The included BD is the one from the 40th anniversary release in 2011 - NOT the disc from 2007.

 

[JoshZ]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Carl David]

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]

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]

I dunno 2780x1620 in a 3840x2160 wrapper seems acceptable all things considered.

 

[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.

 

[Carl David]

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.