4K - 8K Resolution and/or Dolby Atmos/DTSX Content Reviews

[Trell]

House of the Dragon doesn't look as awesome as Rings of Power, but Dragon looks 100% better than LOTR movies thanks to these digital cameras.

Amazing what technology can do.

Does it matter that much when watching a HBO or Amazon stream? Probably not.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Does it matter that much when watching a HBO or Amazon stream? Probably not.

It ABSOLUTELY matters!

As with music and everything else, the ORIGINAL source is salient in determining QUALITY.

When the source is spectacular, it will look and sound spectacular even when compressed.

 

[Trell]

It ABSOLUTELY matters!

As with music and everything else, the ORIGINAL source is salient in determining QUALITY.

Depends on the streaming quality for both video and sound, which very often is sadly lacking. I often see artifacts in streaming content, including Dolby Vision and HDR. The sound is often not that great either.

To be honest a good 1080p bluray usually sounds better and have better picture as well, compared to streaming.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Depends on the streaming quality for both video and sound, which very often is sadly lacking. I often see artifacts in streaming content, including Dolby Vision and HDR. The sound is often not that great either.

To be honest a good 1080p bluray usually sounds better and have better picture as well, compared to streaming.

So a 4K BD of some 1970s, 1980s, 1990s shot using old analog films will look better than the 1080p LOTR ROP streaming on Amazon shot using 4-8K IMAX digital cameras?

 

[Trell]

So a 4K BD of some 1970s, 1980s, 1990s shot using old analog films will look better than the 1080p LOTR ROP streaming on Amazon shot using 4-8K IMAX digital cameras?

It’s the low bitrate and compression artifacts in streaming that I’m talking about.

 

[Movie2099]

Watched the 4k remaster of the movie True Romance.

I had never seen True Romance before. Which is weird because of the star studded cast, director and writer. It was directed by Tony Scott, written by Quentin Tarantino and stars Christian Slater, Patricia Arquette, Dennis Hopper, Val Kilmer, Gary Oldman, Brad Pitt, Christopher Walken, Sam L. Jackson, Michael Rapaport ,James Gandolfini and more. Movie was release in 1993.

PQ-Looks great for a movie made back in 1993. There was a still some film grain, but it wasn't over the top. Arrow video did the 4k remaster using the original camera negative. So they were able to clean some things up. They added Dolby Vision/HDR color grading. The reds in this movie really popped! The movie didn't look like it was made back in 1993. You could easily say it was made within the last 10-15 years, not 29 years ago.

SQ-Arrow video used the original uncompressed DTS-HD MA 5.1 audio. It sounded great! There were a few scenes I could've seen Atmos being utilized, but overall I don't think it would of been necessary to have an Atmos soundtrack for this movie. The 5.1 was good enough.

Overall, I would rate this movie a solid 8/10. You can definitely tell it was written by Tarantino. So if you're a fan of his writing style I think you will really enjoy this movie. I also think if you're a fan of Tony Scott movies you'll really enjoy it too. Seeing this was released in 1993, grand majority of the actors were in their infancy. So it was cool going back to the early 90's and seeing all these actors together in a movie before their careers really took off.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Watched the 4k remaster of the movie True Romance.

I had never seen True Romance before. Which is weird because of the star studded cast, director and writer. It was directed by Tony Scott, written by Quentin Tarantino and stars Christian Slater, Patricia Arquette, Dennis Hopper, Val Kilmer, Gary Oldman, Brad Pitt, Christopher Walken, Sam L. Jackson, Michael Rapaport ,James Gandolfini and more. Movie was release in 1993.

PQ-Looks great for a movie made back in 1993. There was a still some film grain, but it wasn't over the top. Arrow video did the 4k remaster using the original camera negative. So they were able to clean some things up. They added Dolby Vision/HDR color grading. The reds in this movie really popped! The movie didn't look like it was made back in 1993. You could easily say it was made within the last 10-15 years, not 29 years ago.

SQ-Arrow video used the original uncompressed DTS-HD MA 5.1 audio. It sounded great! There were a few scenes I could've seen Atmos being utilized, but overall I don't think it would of been necessary to have an Atmos soundtrack for this movie. The 5.1 was good enough.

Overall, I would rate this movie a solid 8/10. You can definitely tell it was written by Tarantino. So if you're a fan of his writing style I think you will really enjoy this movie. I also, think if you're a fan of Tony Scott movies you'll really enjoy it too. Seeing this was released in 1993, grand majority of the actors were in their infancy. So it was cool going back to the early 90's and seeing all these actors together in a movie before their careers really took off.

I watched it (DVD) when it came out. I remember liking it a lot. So definitely a very good movie.

But in case anyone asks, no way I’m watching this old movie on my 150” screen and 6K-lumen PJ where every dot of grain is magnified a hundred times.

 

[Movie2099]

I watched it (DVD) when it came out. I remember liking it a lot. So definitely a very good movie.

But in case anyone asks, no way I’m watching this old movie on my 150” screen and 6K-lumen PJ where every dot of grain is magnified a hundred times.

Just need to get a better projector.....hahaha! 4k's look amazing on the big screen! DVD's and some blu ray's not so much.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Just need to get a better projector.....hahaha! 4k's look amazing on the big screen! DVD's and some blu ray's not so much.

You just need a MUCH BRIGHTER PJ or a more REVEALING PJ.

2,000, 3,000, or even 4,000 Lumens ain’t gonna cut it.

It’s no wonder you can’t see all the grains and flaws on the screen - it’s like you guys are watching movies with blinders on in the dark. You would not be able to see the grains and flaws in the video if they bit you in the face. You can’t see anything.

Great revealing high-resolution PJ are like great revealing high-resolution speakers. You play songs with flaws, you are going to hear all of those flaws in your speakers. Unless you also have LOW RESOLUTION speakers that cover up all the flaws in the music.

So when you have dim PJ or non-revealing or LOW RESOLUTION PJ, all the flaws are just going to be covered up like bad speakers covering up poor quality songs.

 

[Movie2099]

You just need a MUCH BRIGHTER PJ or a more REVEALING PJ.

2,000, 3,000, or even 4,000 Lumens ain’t gonna cut it.

It’s no wonder you can’t see all the grains and flaws on the screen - it’s like you guys are watching movies with blinders on in the dark. You would not be able to see the grains and flaws in the video if they bit you in the face. You can’t see anything.

Great revealing high-resolution PJ are like great revealing high-resolution speakers. You play songs with flaws, you are going to hear all of those flaws in your speakers. Unless you also have LOW RESOLUTION speakers that cover up all the flaws in the music.

So when you have dim PJ or non-revealing or LOW RESOLUTION PJ, all the flaws are just going to be covered up like bad speakers covering up poor quality songs.

Hahaha! Acu, don't make me move down to Oklahoma and build a house next to you! You will be forced to watch all the greatest 90's movies on 4k on my 200" screen and you'll be able to finally see how good they look on my future projector!

As much as having extra lumens is great, having dynamic tone mapping and great Native contrast (Not Dynamic contrast) is even more important. Having too bright of picture ruins the overall look. Lots of shows and movies are going with a darker look to them. Epson projectors don't have good blacks. JVC projectors have the best blacks on the projector market(Consumer market). Also, Dynamic Tone mapping is the future with projectors. Epson does not have dynamic tone mapping. It is a game changer. Having a projector with Dynamic tone mapping and great Native Contrast is key, I will never go to anything less. The Epson projector you have is similar to the new LS11000/12000 with just more lumens. But doesn't have the Native contrast levels or the dynamic tone mapping.

You should download the MadVR add-on for your Kodi player. You will notice a huge difference in your movies/tv shows.

Now, it's not that I don't see the grain in movies, it's more that I'm a-ok with grain. Grain gives movies their cinematic feel. That's why 95% of movies have some level of grain in them. There are some movies that have way too much grain in them. One director I know that uses too much grain is Zack Snyder.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

As much as having extra lumens is great, having dynamic tone mapping and great Native contrast (Not Dynamic contrast) is even more important. Having too bright of picture ruins the overall look. Lots of shows and movies are going with a darker look to them. Epson projectors don't have good blacks. JVC projectors have the best blacks on the projector market(Consumer market).

That's exactly the response I expected from low-lumen lovers.

Of course, something ELSE is more important if you don't have what's SALIENT (my favorite word).

It's not very difficult to understand. Just like in real life.

When you look at a detailed high resolution photo in real life, compare the result with a WELL-LIT room vs a very DIM-LIT room.

The photo is the same. But your brain will not be able to see as much details and resolution if the lighting is dim.

As for black "levels", it's the same analogy we see with amps in audio - purely subjective and people will claim whatever helps them sleep better at night and win forum debates and high-school popularity contests.

I used to care about popularity contests and winning forum debates and impress forum people with numbers (like THD+N and Contrast levels). But these day I just care about what I actually see and hear in my HT. So while 99.9% of people use powered subs, I use passive subs. While 99.9% of people use low-lumen consumer PJ, I use high-lumen professional PJ.

But......that's not the point of this discussion. People will always debate about which amps and projectors, etc., are better. They can have their popularity contests.

The point is if a video has grains and artifacts, even a million dollar PJ won't magically remove those grains and artifacts.

Unless the picture is too dim and artificially noise-reduced so you don't NOTICE those grains and artifacts.

So I guess I could reduce my lumens from 6K to 2K lumens, increase noise-reduction and decrease sharpness level so I won't be ABLE TO SEE as much grains and artifacts.

But I don't want to. And why should I when movies shot using the newer (2012+) digital cameras produce videos with no grain or artifacts (to my eyes from 18 ft away from screen)?

But I also see your point. Why let some video grains and artifacts stop us from enjoying great movies? I see your point. The question is, which old movies on 4K do I choose to enjoy? Very selective.

Godfather Part 1 & Part 2
Shawshank Redemption
Unforgiven
Braveheart

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I just re-watched “The Dark Tower” in 4K ATMOS.

PQ: Excellent PQ since it was shot using the 6.5K Arri Alexa digital camera. Can’t say enough about these awesome digital cameras.

SQ: There were some scenes that made pretty good use of the overhead speakers, some excellent bass.

Story: I like the movie a lot. It received some bad reviews and rating (5.6 on IMDB) and wasn’t well received at all. Otherwise, I like the writing and directing a lot.

 

[Movie2099]

Elvis 4k review

PQ: Excellent! Was shot using 4.5k and 6.5k Arri cameras. The colors in this movie just pop. Early in the movie Elvis is driving a pink Cadillac and it just pops on screen. Another scene has a yellow car parked on the road and it too just pops! Later in the movie they have a shot of a Christmas tree and all the colors of the ornaments stood out so well. Nice inky blacks in this movie too. When they do the closeup shots on people you can see everything. Baz did a great job with this movie.

SQ: I wouldn't say its "Demo" worthy. But it was very nice. I didn't have it turned up too loud, but I could imagine if you cranked it up during his performances it would sound very good. The bass was not over the top. Used perfectly during music scenes.

Overall, I'm going to give Elvis on 4k a solid 8.5/10. If you've seen other Baz Luhrmann films, you should have a good idea how this movie looks and feels. I wouldn't say this is a "true" documentary style film by any means, but definitely gives you a good idea on how Elvis changed the music scene and how much he loved his fans and was taken advantage by his manager The Colonel.

At the very end Baz includes the real footage of one of Elvis's last performances at the International (6 weeks before his death). Wow! Elvis looked just mentally and emotionally drained, the way he belted out the song was incredible. His voice is one for the ages.

 

[Mr._Clark]

I finally got around to watching Don Darko UHD Blu Ray a couple weeks ago.

I'm assuming most people reading this have already seen this movie, but in case you haven't, the following does have some spoilers.

I had the director's cut in 1080 HD previously, and more recently bought the UHD disk (also director's cut). It's been quite a while since I watched the HD version, and I watched it on a different system. I have not tried a back-to-back comparison of the two disks on the same system, so my impressions of the UHD compared HD are based on memory.

The UHD package I bought came a with a UHD theatrical release disk as well, but I have not watched that yet. Quite a few reviews online state that the UHD theatrical release disk is defective and will not play. Just an FYI.

Overall, I thought the sound track was better on UHD, but I didn't notice a big improvement in picture quality. My impressions are more or less the opposite of other reviews I've seen, so I'm wondering if my impressions might be due (at least in part) to differences in my 2 systems. I'll try watching them back-to-back on the same system and update accordingly.

If you like 80s music, it's almost worth watching just for that. The sound track seemed to be almost perfect. This may be due at least in part to the Philharmonic BMRs in this system. During the party scene near the end, the music was exceptionally clear. The information I've seen online states that the audio track in HD and HDR are the same, but my ears tell me they are different. Having said that, my hearing is far from perfect and my impressions may be based on differences in my 2 systems.

Overall, the picture quality was very good, but I watched it on a Samsung QN75Q70RAF TV. Many of the scenes in this movie are quite dark, and I suspect that there may be improvements in the video that would be more pronounced in an OLED set. One of these days I'll pull the trigger on an OLED TV and watch it again.

As I understand it, this movie was originally filmed in 35 mm on a low budget. Basically, you know you're watching a movie, but I'm perfectly okay with that. (Richard Kelly: “This was the only film shot entirely on the Kodak 800 ASA stock. It had just come out, and people were saying it looked terrible and grainy. But I like grain.”)(https://www.indiewire.com/2014/11/lessons-from-legendary-donnie-darko-cinematographer-67544/)

This may be an odd comparison, but I have Lawrence of Arabia on a 1080 disk, and this appears to be less grainy than Darko in UHD. I attribute this to the Panasonic Super 70 camera and film used to record Lawrence of Arabia, but I'm not 100% sure this actually correct. If anyone has Lawrence of Arabia in UHD, I'd be very interested in your impressions, especially in comparison to HD.

Okay, here come some modest spoilers concerning the director's cut vs the theatrical cut. I like Darko because it's so difficult to figure out exactly what cr*p is going on. One of the major debates over the years is if Donnie is merely dreaming/hallucinating, or if there really is a parallel universe. In the director's cut, it's pretty clear there is a parallel universe. Some people apparently dislike this reduction in ambiguity because it shifts it away from being a "hybrid" (for lack of a better word) psychological thriller/sci fi movie to more of a sci fi movie. For me, there's still plenty of ambiguity/mystery in trying to make sense of the rules of physics in the fictional alternate universe. Also, for whatever reason, I tend to like sci fi movies better than psychological thriller movies.

Edit: I've been thinking about why I prefer the parallel universe interpretation. For me, it boils down to this: In the "parallel universe" interpretation the "other" Donnie is real and he needs to make a choice to die in the "main" world in order to save people in the main world (even though he recognizes that he will ultimately die in both universes). In the "dream" interpretation, Donnie has a weird dream just before he dies. End of story. It seems to me that substituting halucination for dream leads to a similar result, except possibly leaving open some additional ambiguity concerning which universe is the real one. For whatever reason, "real universe" with real choices is more satisfying to me. Given that it's all pure fiction either way, it doesn't really make much difference of course. As always, YMMV.

Overall, Darko in UHD is probably worth it if you're fan who watches the movie multiple times. My best guess is that an OLED TV would be required to really capture the differences between HD and UHD.

 

[Movie2099]

I finally got around to watching Don Darko UHD Blu Ray a couple weeks ago.

I'm assuming most people reading this have already seen this movie, but in case you haven't, the following does have some spoilers.

I had the director's cut in 1080 HD previously, and more recently bought the UHD disk (also director's cut). It's been quite a while since I watched the HD version, and I watched it on a different system. I have not tried a back-to-back comparison of the two disks on the same system, so my impressions of the UHD compared HD are based on memory.

The UHD package I bought came a with a UHD theatrical release disk as well, but I have not watched that yet. Quite a few reviews online state that the UHD theatrical release disk is defective and will not play. Just an FYI.

Overall, I thought the sound track was better on UHD, but I didn't notice a big improvement in picture quality. My impressions are more or less the opposite of other reviews I've seen, so I'm wondering if my impressions might be due (at least in part) to differences in my 2 systems. I'll try watching them back-to-back on the same system and update accordingly.

If you like 80s music, it's almost worth watching just for that. The sound track seemed to be almost perfect. This may be due at least in part to the Philharmonic BMRs in this system. During the party scene near the end, the music was exceptionally clear. The information I've seen online states that the audio track in HD and HDR are the same, but my ears tell me they are different. Having said that, my hearing is far from perfect and my impressions may be based on differences in my 2 systems.

Overall, the picture quality was very good, but I watched it on a Samsung QN75Q70RAF TV. Many of the scenes in this movie are quite dark, and I suspect that there may be improvements in the video that would be more pronounced in an OLED set. One of these days I'll pull the trigger on an OLED TV and watch it again.

As I understand it, this movie was originally filmed in 35 mm on a low budget. Basically, you know you're watching a movie, but I'm perfectly okay with that. (Richard Kelly: “This was the only film shot entirely on the Kodak 800 ASA stock. It had just come out, and people were saying it looked terrible and grainy. But I like grain.”)(https://www.indiewire.com/2014/11/lessons-from-legendary-donnie-darko-cinematographer-67544/)

This may be an odd comparison, but I have Lawrence of Arabia on a 1080 disk, and this appears to be less grainy than Darko in UHD. I attribute this to the Panasonic Super 70 camera and film used to record Lawrence of Arabia, but I'm not 100% sure this actually correct. If anyone has Lawrence of Arabia in UHD, I'd be very interested in your impressions, especially in comparison to HD.

Okay, here come some modest spoilers concerning the director's cut vs the theatrical cut. I like Darko because it's so difficult to figure out exactly what cr*p is going on. One of the major debates over the years is if Donnie is merely dreaming/hallucinating, or if there really is a parallel universe. In the director's cut, it's pretty clear there is a parallel universe. Some people apparently dislike this reduction in ambiguity because it shifts it away from being a "hybrid" (for lack of a better word) psychological thriller/sci fi movie to more of a sci fi movie. For me, there's still plenty of ambiguity/mystery in trying to make sense of the rules of physics in the fictional alternate universe. Also, for whatever reason, I tend to like sci fi movies better than psychological thriller movies.

Edit: I've been thinking about why I prefer the parallel universe interpretation. For me, it boils down to this: In the "parallel universe" interpretation the "other" Donnie is real and he needs to make a choice to die in the "main" world in order to save people in the main world (even though he recognizes that he will ultimately die in both universes). In the "dream" interpretation, Donnie has a weird dream just before he dies. End of story. It seems to me that substituting halucination for dream leads to a similar result, except possibly leaving open some additional ambiguity concerning which universe is the real one. For whatever reason, "real universe" with real choices is more satisfying to me. Given that it's all pure fiction either way, it doesn't really make much difference of course. As always, YMMV.

Overall, Darko in UHD is probably worth it if you're fan who watches the movie multiple times. My best guess is that an OLED TV would be required to really capture the differences between HD and UHD.

I too have the Arrow Video 4k release. I will finally be watching it next month during my Halloween horror movie marathon. I've owned it since release but never got around to it. I'm looking forward to seeing it in 4k. I've seen it many times when it officially came out. It's a great movie!

I remember reading about potential issues with one of the discs, but I don't think it was 100% of the discs. I remember seeing many reviews of the release and the people reviewing it said they never experienced the issue.

This will be the best version of the movie. I'm not expecting Demo worthy material here but am I looking forward to it looking crisper and a better color pallet. Regarding film grain, I don't mind film grain. It's more cinematic with some grain. As long as it's not destroying the picture, I'm good with it. I know one person on here who hates grain with a passion.

 

[Movie2099]

Well, here it is! Drops Nov. 15th!

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Well, here it is! Drops Nov. 15th!

View attachment 57836

I did enjoy Halo S01 a lot. Awesome 4K PQ.

 

[Movie2099]

I did enjoy Halo S01 a lot. Awesome 4K PQ.

Now PQ and SQ will be even better on 4k physical disc! It's only $60!!

 

[j_garcia]

I finally got around to watching Don Darko UHD Blu Ray a couple weeks ago.

I'm assuming most people reading this have already seen this movie, but in case you haven't, the following does have some spoilers.

I had the director's cut in 1080 HD previously, and more recently bought the UHD disk (also director's cut). It's been quite a while since I watched the HD version, and I watched it on a different system. I have not tried a back-to-back comparison of the two disks on the same system, so my impressions of the UHD compared HD are based on memory.

The UHD package I bought came a with a UHD theatrical release disk as well, but I have not watched that yet. Quite a few reviews online state that the UHD theatrical release disk is defective and will not play. Just an FYI.

Overall, I thought the sound track was better on UHD, but I didn't notice a big improvement in picture quality. My impressions are more or less the opposite of other reviews I've seen, so I'm wondering if my impressions might be due (at least in part) to differences in my 2 systems. I'll try watching them back-to-back on the same system and update accordingly.

If you like 80s music, it's almost worth watching just for that. The sound track seemed to be almost perfect. This may be due at least in part to the Philharmonic BMRs in this system. During the party scene near the end, the music was exceptionally clear. The information I've seen online states that the audio track in HD and HDR are the same, but my ears tell me they are different. Having said that, my hearing is far from perfect and my impressions may be based on differences in my 2 systems.

Overall, the picture quality was very good, but I watched it on a Samsung QN75Q70RAF TV. Many of the scenes in this movie are quite dark, and I suspect that there may be improvements in the video that would be more pronounced in an OLED set. One of these days I'll pull the trigger on an OLED TV and watch it again.

As I understand it, this movie was originally filmed in 35 mm on a low budget. Basically, you know you're watching a movie, but I'm perfectly okay with that. (Richard Kelly: “This was the only film shot entirely on the Kodak 800 ASA stock. It had just come out, and people were saying it looked terrible and grainy. But I like grain.”)(https://www.indiewire.com/2014/11/lessons-from-legendary-donnie-darko-cinematographer-67544/)

This may be an odd comparison, but I have Lawrence of Arabia on a 1080 disk, and this appears to be less grainy than Darko in UHD. I attribute this to the Panasonic Super 70 camera and film used to record Lawrence of Arabia, but I'm not 100% sure this actually correct. If anyone has Lawrence of Arabia in UHD, I'd be very interested in your impressions, especially in comparison to HD.

Okay, here come some modest spoilers concerning the director's cut vs the theatrical cut. I like Darko because it's so difficult to figure out exactly what cr*p is going on. One of the major debates over the years is if Donnie is merely dreaming/hallucinating, or if there really is a parallel universe. In the director's cut, it's pretty clear there is a parallel universe. Some people apparently dislike this reduction in ambiguity because it shifts it away from being a "hybrid" (for lack of a better word) psychological thriller/sci fi movie to more of a sci fi movie. For me, there's still plenty of ambiguity/mystery in trying to make sense of the rules of physics in the fictional alternate universe. Also, for whatever reason, I tend to like sci fi movies better than psychological thriller movies.

Edit: I've been thinking about why I prefer the parallel universe interpretation. For me, it boils down to this: In the "parallel universe" interpretation the "other" Donnie is real and he needs to make a choice to die in the "main" world in order to save people in the main world (even though he recognizes that he will ultimately die in both universes). In the "dream" interpretation, Donnie has a weird dream just before he dies. End of story. It seems to me that substituting halucination for dream leads to a similar result, except possibly leaving open some additional ambiguity concerning which universe is the real one. For whatever reason, "real universe" with real choices is more satisfying to me. Given that it's all pure fiction either way, it doesn't really make much difference of course. As always, YMMV.

Overall, Darko in UHD is probably worth it if you're fan who watches the movie multiple times. My best guess is that an OLED TV would be required to really capture the differences between HD and UHD.

I bought it on day one. Not as much of a fan of the director's cut, that ambiguity makes it more interesting. Knowing where it is going and watching it again gives you a slightly different perspective too. I saw this in the theater and loved it ever since.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Now PQ and SQ will be even better on 4k physical disc! It's only $60!!

Way too expensive for me.

I can only afford $1 McDonald's menu.