Thoughts on 4K Blu-Rays? Anyone collect?

[FireHazard51 | 2,088]

I started to collect VHS as a teen before DVDs came into popularity.  Switched collecting it but didn't get that big because of being a poor college student.  Then when I got deployed to Iraq I would buy a few Blu-ray movies after every mission as reward for surviving and something to keep me entertained during down time.  Ended up with a very nice collection and it continued to grow for a few years before I mostly stoped.

Couple weeks ago I put all my Blu-ray movies into two large storage containers.  I haven't watched a movie in two years.  Any more I feel like it's a waste to collect the next new format.  Now with a PSVR I'm interested in buying dirt cheap 3D movies.  

With 4k tvs in the house maybe when I get a PS5 I'll try a couple of 4k movies.  

[DoctorEncore | 3,691]

I don't recall ever seeing a television thread on this site, so I'll just bring it up here. LG just announced pricing and more details for their 2021 OLED lineup. The highlights are the new brighter panel on the G series and the addition of a ginormous 83" screen in the C series. I have a 65" E6 (4K/3D OLED from 2016) and have been contemplating upgrading. The picture on my E6 is actually still mindblowingly good when paired with 4K discs, but it doesn't support 120Hz and I really want to utilize that feature on the new consoles. I also have a 100" projector screen that we sometimes use for family movies or group viewing. I figure I could potentially replace my projector screen with the 83" C1 and get a huge picture improvement without sacrificing too much screen size.

Anyways, to bring it back around to the topic at hand. Prices are coming down nicely for the base OLED models with the 48" A1 being $1300 and 55" being $1600. If you're really looking at getting the most out of your 4K discs, I highly recommend any of these OLED panels. Or better yet, get the amazingly reviewed BX or CX from last year when they get clearanced out.

 

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

20 minutes ago, DoctorEncore said:

I don't recall ever seeing a television thread on this site, so I'll just bring it up here. LG just announced pricing and more details for their 2021 OLED lineup. The highlights are the new brighter panel on the G series and the addition of a ginormous 83" screen in the C series. I have a 65" E6 (4K/3D OLED from 2016) and have been contemplating upgrading. The picture on my E6 is actually still mindblowingly good when paired with 4K discs, but it doesn't support 120Hz and I really want to utilize that feature on the new consoles. I also have a 100" projector screen that we sometimes use for family movies or group viewing. I figure I could potentially replace my projector screen with the 83" C1 and get a huge picture improvement without sacrificing too much screen size.

Anyways, to bring it back around to the topic at hand. Prices are coming down nicely for the base OLED models with the 48" A1 being $1300 and 55" being $1600. If you're really looking at getting the most out of your 4K discs, I highly recommend any of these OLED panels. Or better yet, get the amazingly reviewed BX or CX from last year when they get clearanced out.

 

I'd be interested in hearing practical feedback on burn-in risk for OLEDs.

[DoctorEncore | 3,691]

22 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

I'd be interested in hearing practical feedback on burn-in risk for OLEDs.

I've never read any specific articles about it, so I can't quote percentages or hours of screen time, but the risk seems to be getting lower with each generation of new panels. 

THAT BEING SAID, I played so much Rocket League (>1000 hours) on my TV that I do have some burn in from a couple of HUD elements. These HUD elements are very bright and static and I didn't notice them causing an issue until too late. Even so, the burn-in on my panel is usually not visible. On rare occasions when certain colors are present on that exact area of the screen, I can see it. No one else has ever noticed it, and it doesn't cause issues when I watch movies, but it sometimes bothers me to know it's there.

Overall, I feel like it's not a major issue. Over the past several months I watched all of Wanda Vision, much of S2 of The Mandalorian, and several movies (including Tenet this past weekend), and never noticed the burn in. If you are more diligent than men and actually clear the panel noise regularly, it shouldn't be an issue. I still wouldn't recommend leaving it on CNN or other channels with a ticker for ten hours a day though.

[Webhead123 | 698]

I just recently (within the last 2 months or so) started down the rabbit hole of 4K UHD stuff. I have come to really appreciate the level of quality possible with the format but, like many things, not all 4K is created equal.

More so than ever, the quality of the 4K experience is going to depend on the quality of effort put into the products. Not only the obvious stuff like choice of TV, sound system and player but even simply in the 4K discs themselves. More specifically, the quality of the restoration/transfer.

The irony that most "older" films (stuff shot on actual "film" and not digitally) tend to benefit more from a good 4K restoration than modern films is a reason to pay attention to the format. But I've found that one needs to be a bit selective in the 4K (and even Blu-Ray) market. Many releases will cheap-out on their "restoration" and just upscale lower-resolution scans or plaster on layers of DNR that makes the film look muddy and wash out the detail. Still other 4K releases might be based on a good quality scan but then do other obnoxious things like completely change the color-timing of the entire movie.

The 4K releases of the original Star Wars Trilogy is one good example. Other than still being based on the blasted "Special Editions", the overall color of the film has been pretty significantly altered. You can see a quick comparison here:

Star Wars 4K Comparison

But in the instances where the restoration is handled well, the difference between previous home video formats and a proper 4K experience is pretty amazing. You'll notice details in a movie that you were never able to pick out before thanks to the incredibly high resolution. The colors in a good HDR or Dolby Vision render are really impressive. Some fantastic examples of just how good a proper 4K can look are films like Alien, Jaws and The Matrix.

Edited March 29, 2021 by Webhead123

[G-type | 2,685]

If I ever upgrade to a 4k tv, I might consider getting a small collection of 4k discs, but really there's not that many I'd really want to own. Does Fury Road look so much better in 4k (upscaled from 2k) to justify repurchasing it when I already have it on Blu-ray?

I might buy Blade Runner again for the 3rd time. (and get 2049 while I'm at it). beyond that, I'm not sure... do I go for movies you've seen a lot already, like They Live? or do I go for a movie I've been meaning to watch, like Tenet?

[Webhead123 | 698]

18 hours ago, FireHazard51 said:

Any more I feel like it's a waste to collect the next new format.

Having to re-buy films on upgraded formats has long been a personal annoyance and is one of the reasons I've been such a late-bloomer when it comes to fully adopting Blu-Ray and 4K media. I've come to realize that there is some significant value to upgrading, just as long as the consumer is educated and selective about their purchases (and buying stuff used is also a real wallet-saver).

The nice thing to know as far as the 4K format goes though, is that it is really the practical ceiling for most film, particularly when you're talking about historical releases. This is because (in simplified terms) a 35mm film image produces effectively 20 megapixels worth of image detail (on average...film chemical composition and processing has a lot of variables to it). A 4K digital image is roughly 8.5 megapixels. So, while a 4K scan of 35mm catches just under half of the average available pixel detail, the next "step up" to 8K resolution contains over 33 megapixels. This means that an 8K scan would actually have more image detail than the source can supply (effectively, you'd be "wasting 13 megapixels" because only 20 of your 33 have significant image data).

That's a lot of pixel-talk to say that, when and if studios begin marketing "8K EUHD" media, most of the catalog of historical films and television will be wasted on such a format. Even most contemporary, digitally-shot films today are only rendered at 2K (occasionally 4K if they don't involve much digital effects-work), so even more modern films wouldn't have much point being upscaled that far.

I'm sure there will be some future gimmicks to make 8K appealing to the cutting-edge customer base but it is important to know that "upgrading" historical film does have its limits and a quality 4K restoration is about as far as can be reasonably achieved with 35mm.

[Webhead123 | 698]

31 minutes ago, G-type said:

If I ever upgrade to a 4k tv, I might consider getting a small collection of 4k discs, but really there's not that many I'd really want to own. Does Fury Road look so much better in 4k (upscaled from 2k) to justify repurchasing it when I already have it on Blu-ray?

This is the real point and why I think buyers need to be selective about 4K purchasing. Personally, I've only found that there's about 25 current films worth owning in 4K, where the upgrade is significant enough to be justified and the restoration wasn't botched. 4K offers a lot more value for restorations of movies shot on "film" as opposed to current digital stuff.

I've seen Fury Road on 4K vs. 1080p. As you say, since the film source is itself only from a 2K DI, the 4K version is simply an upscale rather than a true "4K render". The most significant difference you will see is not in the image detail but simply in the added contrast and color from HDR. It does make the film "pop" a bit more off the screen (especially since the use of color in Fury Road is so incredibly gorgeous) but is it really that big of a difference, worth re-buying? I don't personally think so.

But try an older film on 4K like The Blues Brothers, Pitch Black or Tremors, where they were rescanned for 4K and compare them to older home video releases. That's where you see a pretty impressive difference.

Edited March 29, 2021 by Webhead123

[FireHazard51 | 2,088]

1 hour ago, Webhead123 said:

This is the real point and why I think buyers need to be selective about 4K purchasing. Personally, I've only found that there's about 25 current films worth owning in 4K, where the upgrade is significant enough to be justified and the restoration wasn't botched. 4K offers a lot more value for restorations of movies shot on "film" as opposed to current digital stuff.

I've seen Fury Road on 4K vs. 1080p. As you say, since the film source is itself only from a 2K DI, the 4K version is simply an upscale rather than a true "4K render". The most significant difference you will see is not in the image detail but simply in the added contrast and color from HDR. It does make the film "pop" a bit more off the screen (especially since the use of color in Fury Road is so incredibly gorgeous) but is it really that big of a difference, worth re-buying? I don't personally think so.

But try an older film on 4K like The Blues Brothers, Pitch Black or Tremors, where they were rescanned for 4K and compare them to older home video releases. That's where you see a pretty impressive difference.

This is really great to hear that older films show the better improvement.  There are only so many older films that I would really love to rewatch again.  Off the top of my head I'd say Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory but I'm not sure if that is in 4K yet.  It surely will eventually.  

Some films I'm worried are not as good in better resolution.  Nightmare Before Christmas would be one that I'm course if I think its better in 4K or 1080p.  I rather not see the finger prints on the puppets faces 

[Webhead123 | 698]

16 minutes ago, FireHazard51 said:

This is really great to hear that older films show the better improvement.  There are only so many older films that I would really love to rewatch again.  Off the top of my head I'd say Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory but I'm not sure if that is in 4K yet.  It surely will eventually.  

Some films I'm worried are not as good in better resolution.  Nightmare Before Christmas would be one that I'm course if I think its better in 4K or 1080p.  I rather not see the finger prints on the puppets faces 

Willy Wonka would be a good one to see in 4K. Not released yet as far as I can tell. Films with lots of saturated colors like that look great if they are given a good 4K scan and quality HDR layer. The clarity and color in The Wizard of Oz looks pretty incredible, for example...and that's a film from 1939!

That is something to consider. Even when it comes to costumes or make-up effects in older films...you might occasionally notice the seams where you didn't before but it's not as common an occurrence as you might think. One significant element that people are torn on is the subject of "film grain". Surprise, surprise...movies were once shot on film and film uses photo-sensitive "grain" to capture its image. It wasn't always very noticeable on older home formats due to resolution limitations but now with 4K, you can really notice the grain emerge on older films, especially in dark shots. Some people don't like this and think it looks ugly or distracting. Others (like myself) recognize it's part of the aesthetic of a movie shot on film and aren't bothered by it (or, often, prefer it). Some 4K restorations employ various levels of DNR to smooth out or remove the film grain. Some of them do a respectable job at "cleaning up" the image but others just smear the picture into a washed-out mess.

[fox | 1,723]

8 hours ago, G-type said:

I might buy Blade Runner again for the 3rd time. (and get 2049 while I'm at it). beyond that, I'm not sure... do I go for movies you've seen a lot already, like They Live? or do I go for a movie I've been meaning to watch, like Tenet?

Blade Runner has been cleaned up several times over the years and looks fantastic on 4k.  Something like Tenet, or anything shot in IMAX are real show stoppers.  They Live looks good, but keep in mind the film was shot with a narrow focus and lots of film grain as part of the aesthetic, so it doesn't quite wow like some others but it is still a fav film of mine.

[Webhead123 | 698]

47 minutes ago, fox said:

They Live looks good, but keep in mind the film was shot with a narrow focus and lots of film grain as part of the aesthetic, so it doesn't quite wow like some others but it is still a fav film of mine.

That's one I'm meaning to pick up as a personal favorite but I'm also eagerly awaiting seeing The Thing properly restored in 4K.

[fox | 1,723]

6 hours ago, Webhead123 said:

That's one I'm meaning to pick up as a personal favorite but I'm also eagerly awaiting seeing The Thing properly restored in 4K.

I picked up They Live with another Carpenter classic, Escape From New York, and the upper mid tier Prince of Darkness and The Fog.  I also have the Christine 4k disc, which after rewatching is a lot better than I originally gave it credit for.

The Thing 4k would be a Day 1 buy from me.  Though I have heard great things about the blu ray restoration done by Arrow release from a couple years back.

[Webhead123 | 698]

5 hours ago, fox said:

I may have to give in and pick up that Carpenter collection. Some incredible films there. I just kinda have a bias against "collected" editions of movies, which is why I haven't gotten it yet.