The Sting 4K UHD Coming From Universal (1 Viewer)

[RICK BOND]

I got mine Today ! The PQ is Not WOW ! That's for sure. Maybe slightly better than the Bluray ? Next week I will be getting My Fair Lady 4K UHD. That movie is 9 years older. The reviews and screen shots I saw were WOW ! I do Not see any Info on the back that says New 2K or 4K Remaster or Restored. I was Expecting it to look Much Better.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I got mine Today ! The PQ is Not WOW ! That's for sure. Maybe slightly better than the Bluray ? Next week I will be getting My Fair Lady 4K UHD. That movie is 9 years older. The reviews and screen shots I saw were WOW ! I do Not see any Info on the back that says New 2K or 4K Remaster or Restored. I was Expecting it to look Much Better. View attachment 97620

It's not only the age of the movie, but what film stock was used during filming.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I got mine Today ! The PQ is Not WOW ! That's for sure. Maybe slightly better than the Bluray ? Next week I will be getting My Fair Lady 4K UHD. That movie is 9 years older. The reviews and screen shots I saw were WOW ! I do Not see any Info on the back that says New 2K or 4K Remaster or Restored. I was Expecting it to look Much Better. View attachment 97620

It's not only the age of the movie, but what film stock was used during filming.

Not only film stock, but format. Consider this logically: MFL is 5-perf 65mm, with a usable image area of 1.913" x .868". Even if going from seps, you're going to have a largely grain-free and highly resolved image. The Sting is a 1.85:1 AR on 35mm, not shot VVLA, and therefore the usable image area is .825" x .447", meaning that the usable image area on the 65mm based production is nearly 5x that of a 1.85:1 image. Even with improvements in film stock and scanning, there is no way The Sting can possibly look as good as MFL. It can look good, but not 65mm good. If it was a VVLA production, the difference would be considerably less and possibly invisible to the untrained eye.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Not only film stock, but format. Consider this logically: MFL is 5-perf 65mm, with a usable image area of 1.913" x .868". Even if going from seps, you're going to have a largely grain-free and highly resolved image. The Sting is a 1.85:1 AR on 35mm, not shot VVLA, and therefore the usable image area is .825" x .447", meaning that the usable image area on the 65mm based production is nearly 5x that of a 1.85:1 image. Even with improvements in film stock and scanning, there is no way The Sting can possibly look as good as MFL. It can look good, but not 65mm good. If it was a VVLA production, the difference would be considerably less and possibly invisible to the untrained eye.

Early 70s film emulsions were also pretty subpar in general. All this proves is some reviewers tend to be overly critical of transfers of films that always kinda looked lousy even when they were released.

 

[Felix Martinez]

Wow. The UHD looks more degrained and cosmetically massaged than the included blu-ray in the 4K set. Example: the matte painting shot right after The Set Up title card.

Mind boggling. And here I was hoping to retire my HD-DVD copy (and player).

 

[Robert Crawford]

To me, it was unusually grainy .

Wow. The UHD looks more degrained and cosmetically massaged than the included blu-ray in the 4K set. Example: the matte painting shot right after The Set Up title card.

Mind boggling. And here I was hoping to retire my HD-DVD copy (and player).

One person is saying it's unusually grainy and another is saying it's degrained too much.

 

[MovieBill]

Same with Fox's lousy Blu-ray of BUTCH CASSIDY. Now that Disney owns it, God knows when we'll see a 4K.

It's not great news unless they've completely from scratch redone the wretched Blu-ray transfer.

 

[B-ROLL]

Same with Fox's lousy Blu-ray of BUTCH CASSIDY. Now that Disney owns it, God knows when we'll see a 4K.

Dissknee's response:

...

MFL and The Sting are two entirely different films> MFL is like Belgian Chocolate in a very pretty bright box - The Sting is light an Oh Henry! (candy bar) that has been just been brought out from being in the sun and left to cool. Either one might satisfy a cinematic sweet tooth - but will most likely leave a different taste in your mouth ...

 

[Felix Martinez]

One person is saying it's unusually grainy and another is saying it's degrained too much.

Look at the sky in the matte painting shot and compare the 4K and the included Blu-ray Disc. The blu-ray is less degrained. I’m totally confused by this release. What happened?

 

[Robert Crawford]

Look at the sky in the matte painting shot and compare the 4K and the included Blu-ray Disc. The blu-ray is less degrained. I’m totally confused by this release. What happened?

Sorry, but once my 4K disc arrives, I'm going to watch the entire movie and then decide for myself whether I'm happy with it. I'll leave all of that comparison stuff to other people.

 

[old mole]

I got mine Today ! The PQ is Not WOW ! That's for sure. Maybe slightly better than the Bluray ? Next week I will be getting My Fair Lady 4K UHD. That movie is 9 years older. The reviews and screen shots I saw were WOW ! I do Not see any Info on the back that says New 2K or 4K Remaster or Restored. I was Expecting it to look Much Better. View attachment 97620

I too am greatly disappointed with this 4k upgrade(?). Not much better than the Blu-ray.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Pins and needles it is I guess...

_Man_

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I seriously doubt that early 70s flat titles have enough resolution and colour depth to justify 4K, let alone HDR. It's like all those DV-originated films from the early aughts coming to Blu-ray. There are exceptions, but what was the point?

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

In at least some of these cases, many of us probably largely just want a significantly better BD... perhaps like what Warner Archive has been offering, not necessarily 4K/HDR...

One would hope for similarly good transfer and/or (re)mastering for a 4K release though, which some/most studios might not bother for BD at this point...

_Man_

 

[Felix Martinez]

Sorry, but once my 4K disc arrives, I'm going to watch the entire movie and then decide for myself whether I'm happy with it. I'll leave all of that comparison stuff to other people.

I’m curious to read other reactions as I’m just very confused by this release. We watched The Sting in its entirety on a Sony 4k projector @ 92 in. I did get the steel book at Best Buy and I’m assuming it has the same discs as the regular 4K release.

 

[Worth]

I seriously doubt that early 70s flat titles have enough resolution and colour depth to justify 4K, let alone HDR. It's like all those DV-originated films from the early aughts coming to Blu-ray. There are exceptions, but what was the point?

There's no absolute consensus, but I've read that a 35mm negative typically has between 3-4K of real image detail, so effectively sub-4K, and even less for the higher-speed, grainer stocks of the late-60s-80s. Kodak claims as high as 6K, but that would apply to modern stocks and to more thoroughly resolve the grain.

 

[Richard Gallagher]

Robert A. Harris rates the image at 4.8 and says "The overall imagery is virtually perfect. The only minor problem noted involves occasional skin tones, which seem to go off in an odd direction."​

​

A few words about...™ The Sting-- in 4k​

 

[dpippel]

Also, for those interested, the included Blu-ray appears to be the old, DNR-heavy release.

 

[RICK BOND]

I guess this is the Best The Sting will ever look. Better than nothing.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Now I know with The Sting 4K release that NOT all 4K releases are created equal . I got Spoiled with the 2001 A Space Odyssey 4K release.

Frankly, you should have learned that lesson long before 4K releases due to different film element variables.