Blu-ray Review Heat: Director's Definitive Edition Blu-ray Review (1 Viewer)

[dpippel]

From the Digital Bits, for what it's worth:

"20th Century Fox’s new 1080p/2.39:1 aspect ratio Blu-ray presentation, mastered from a brand new 4K scan and restoration supervised by Mann, improves upon Warner’s 2009 Blu-ray image in virtually every way..."

 

[JohnRice]

I received it yesterday (my 4th purchase of this movie, going back to LD) and watched it today. For roughly $8, I don't know what all the hemming and hawing is for. It looks and sounds great. 'nuff said.

 

[Carabimero]

I never said it didn't look great. I said it it didn't appear to be made from a 4K source as had been reported.

I have the BD remaster of GLORY from a 4K source and that popped my eyeballs. I'm wondering if this release of HEAT was even remastered.

It's my own fault for double dipping before the reviews were out. But generally I can trust the Digital Bits. Live and learn.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I never said it didn't look great. I said it it didn't appear to be made from a 4K source as had been reported.

I have the BD remaster of GLORY from a 4K source and that popped my eyeballs. I'm wondering if this release of HEAT was even remastered.

It's my own fault for double dipping before the reviews were out. But generally I can trust the Digital Bits. Live and learn.

I seriously doubt Fox would issue misinformation about this release and then have Michael Mann at a Q & A promoting this video release.

 

[Carabimero]

I seriously doubt Fox would issue misinformation about this release and then have Michael Mann at a Q & A promoting this video release.

I never said Fox released misinformation.

After seeing the quality of the transfer, I am simply questioning whether the info from the Digital Bits is accurate. Can someone provide a secondary source confirming this BD transfer stemmed from 4K? I saw nothing on the box (or on the screen) confirming the info from The Digital Bits.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I never said Fox released misinformation.

After seeing the quality of the transfer, I am simply questioning whether the info from the Digital Bits is accurate. Can someone provide a secondary source confirming this BD transfer stemmed from 4K? I saw nothing on the box (or on the screen) confirming the info from The Digital Bits.

The following post from Ron Epstein states a new restoration overseen by Michael Mann. I have a hard time believing that it wasn't done in 4K. So you can choose to believe what you want and I'll do the same.

https://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/posts/4473589/

 

[Sam Favate]

Got mine yesterday. I was upgrading from DVD, so it was an easy choice.

I am a little afraid for the future of physical media when something as special as a director-approved restoration of a classic film with an hour of new extras is sold for less than $8.

 

[Carabimero]

I have a hard time believing that it wasn't done in 4K. So you can choose to believe what you want and I'll do the same.

Nobody I talked to can confirm this was sourced from 4K. Nothing I can find in post 26 or on the box says it's from 4K. Even if I wanted to make a leap in logic and believe it was, it simply doesn't look like a 4K source.

My beef was information from another reputable source stating that it was mastered from 4K and ordering it based on that info. As I stated in an earlier post, it's a mistake I shan't make again.

I am a little afraid for the future of physical media when something as special as a director-approved restoration of a classic film with an hour of new extras is sold for less than $8.

The price point is another strong indicator that a 4K source is extremely unlikely. The price alone should have been enough to alert me.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Nobody I talked to can confirm this was sourced from 4K. Nothing I can find in post 26 or on the box says it's from 4K. Even if I wanted to make a leap in logic and believe it was, it simply doesn't look like a 4K source.

It is interesting that the announcement that Ron posted does not mention that it was scanned at 4K but all over the internet in articles where it is discussed they all mention a new 4K scan. Obviously it is a new scan, that much seems certain and if they did a new scan why would they not have done it at 4K. I have the disc but have not yet watched it. Many reviews I have seen say detail improves on this new disc but perhaps not to a degree that convinces people it is 4K. Also I believe I have seen people mentioning that this new image is "darker" and perhaps this has something to do with how people feel about how it looks. I would assume contacting 20th Century Fox could get an answer. I am sure the people involved with the disc know the particulars of what was done.

You will find this repeated in several places around the internet:

The release will be sourced from a NEW 4K REMASTER of the film, supervised by director Michael Mann.

I would guess that Fox put that out there and it was not invented by the people repeating it...you would hope anyway.

 

[Carabimero]

The strongest indicator to me that is is not 4K (besides my subjective eyes) is that there is nothing on the box (that I could find) to indicate it. It's a major selling point and I'd expect to see it at the top of the box.

 

[Robert Crawford]

The strongest indicator to me that is is not 4K (besides my subjective eyes) is that there is nothing on the box (that I could find) to indicate.

Like I stated believe as you wish and I'll do the same until proof is provided to prove otherwise.

 

[Carabimero]

Until proof is available, I'll go with the preponderance of evidence. All that suggests to me it's not from a 4K source.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Until proof is available, I'll go with the preponderance of evidence, which suggests to me it's not from a 4K source.

More like your opinion, but okay have it your way.

 

[Carabimero]

More like your opinion, but okay have it your way.

It's an opinion I can back up with more than just a single assumption (nothing on the official box says it is; it doesn't look like it is to many who own it, and the price doesn't support it).

 

[Robert Crawford]

It's an opinion I can back up with more than just a single assumption.

Whatever, I'm cool with you thinking that way.

 

[Carabimero]

If you say so.

 

[Robert Crawford]

 

[gadgtfreek]

Ah, the specs matter so much. Kinda how some 2K DI UHD releases looked better than some 4K DI UHD releases. I know, I know, hard to believe but true...

 

[gadgtfreek]

I received it yesterday (my 4th purchase of this movie, going back to LD) and watched it today. For roughly $8, I don't know what all the hemming and hawing is for. It looks and sounds great. 'nuff said.

Yeah, I mean do we watch the slip cover for 2 hours, the IMDB data base for specs for 2 hours, or do we just watch the damn movie?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

For what it's worth, there are plenty of discs sourced from 4K remastered that don't highlight this on the box. Of the major studios, Sony is really the most active in pursuing that verbiage.

I also don't think disc cost has anything to do with anything. Discs are an afterthought now. They no longer sell enough copies to be the sole funding of a major studio restoration. Universal's gorgeous new Spartacus restoration is under $10. All this says to me is that Fox is going for volume. The previous Heat disc has been about $6-8 for years. I'm sure the studio is aware of how many copies it has sold and at what price point and made the calculation that they'd make more selling more copies for a smaller fee than fewer copies for a higher fee.