Winston T. Boogie
Senior HTF Member
What banner, Peter?Peter Neski said:This stupid Universal disc won't let you freeze frame it without a stupid banner coming up! I take it the region 2 version doesn't have this problem
What banner, Peter?Peter Neski said:This stupid Universal disc won't let you freeze frame it without a stupid banner coming up! I take it the region 2 version doesn't have this problem
I'm sorry, but are you actually making a post like this without having seen the disc? There are too many variables to make this kind of post. You have no idea what kind of scanner was used - I know you have expertise in this field and therefore I feel you should be honor bound NOT to make a post full of suppositions based on screen caps. When you've seen it, then you can say whatever you like and everyone can feel free to completely agree or disagree with you - many have already completely disagreed with you right here in this thread. But fair is fairTorsten Kaiser said:Taken a look again, this time with a bit more time at hand (recommendation: one should always do that ). I stand corrected. Thanx for your input and my apologies.
The scan and the master is, indeed, a different one. However - and this was that initially (mis)lead me to my in this case incorrect earlier statement - the quality is barely comparable in most shots to the High Definition masters made predominantly in 2010 with merely some shots "benefiting" from the color re-timing.
In essence, the new master of the "reconstruction version" seems 4K by number and letter of the alphabet, and I highly doubt the scanner was one of the "ranking" ones. All indications at least of the grabs - provided these are, indeed, also representative of what's on disc - point to low grade models. Granted, the 35mm materials situation is not ideal with ToE but this particular result reminds me very much of recent titles issued under "4K" such as ROCKY, ROBOCOP*, or FARGO*. All (4K downconverts) compare about on equal level to Spirit HD native transfers as far as fine detail and texture are concerned. This is very much the same here, partly (due to the [in the cases incorrect] choices of color re-timing) the shots are even a bit more problematic. Only a couple are actually better in registration, albeit very, very slightly. With all titles mentioned the result with a "ranking" scanner such as NORTHLIGHT or IMAGICA would have been at least noticably better, if not profoundly*. Even with not quite as precise scanners such as ARRI, SCANITY or 4K SPIRIT the outcome, always provided proper scanning and color re-timing, would have preserved the fine detail not present in these "4K" scans.
Instead of using the < & >, use the [ & ].Tom Logan said:P. S. Sorry: How does one actually hide one's spoilers in these forums?