Upgrading from Blu-ray to UHD: Where do you draw the line? (1 Viewer)

[John Dirk]

However, as the subject of this thread is upgrading from Blu-ray to UHD, if an older Blu-ray had a thunderous booming 5.1 track, and a new UHD has an Atmos remix with half or less the bass extension (e.g. Oblivion), I'm not sure that's really an "upgrade." IMO.

Interesting you would use that particular film as an example since it's among my favorites of the modern era. The Blu Ray is mixed in 7.1 DTS-HD MA [5.1 French and music] and does sound great but the Atmos mix on the UHD disc is simply superb. I can't say I noticed any bass deficiencies and neither RAH's initial comments or the BluRay.com review mention this as an issue.

You've just given me an excuse to cue up my UHD version so that I can check on this.

Update:
I watched the first 20 minutes or so of both my standard Blu Ray and my UHD version immediately after writing the initial post above. Why? Cause I'm a crazy film buff. Anyway, I can't say the Atmos track was lacking in any way on the UHD disc, bass or otherwise. What I did notice, however, was a decrease in visual appeal, likely due to the limits of projectors where HDR is concerned. That's why I concentrate on the audio mix when deciding whether or not to update UHD titles.

 

[Kyle_D]

Most recent movies have weak bass also, as that seem to be the current trend in sound mixing. For those, there may not be a better-sounding option.

I suspect we have entered an era where a lot of mixes are "optimized" (i.e. compromised) for sound bars.

 

[JoshZ]

What I did notice, however, was a decrease in visual appeal, likely due to the limits of projectors where HDR is concerned.

The 4K upconversion for that movie (originally a 2K DI) has also been DNR'ed compared to the 1080p Blu-ray.

 

[Bartman]

I've been thru: VHS, laserdisc, DVD & Blu-ray buying cycles and refuse to go to 4K UHD. I'm still upgrading some favorite DVD titles (most recently: Basic Instinct, True Romance, The Limey, To Kill A Mockingbird), let alone still waiting for some laserdiscs (Abyss, Mountains Of The Moon etc). I have crates full of DVDs in my basement and I'm seriously considering donating them to the local library.

 

[JohnRice]

Update:
I watched the first 20 minutes or so of both my standard Blu Ray and my UHD version immediately after writing the initial post above. Why? Cause I'm a crazy film buff. Anyway, I can't say the Atmos track was lacking in any way on the UHD disc, bass or otherwise. What I did notice, however, was a decrease in visual appeal, likely due to the limits of projectors where HDR is concerned. That's why I concentrate on the audio mix when deciding whether or not to update UHD titles.

I expect that is a problem when your image presentation is somewhat limited with HDR. I had a UHD player for maybe a year before I had any 4K displays, and some discs had issues, while others were downright unwatchable. One I recall was one of the Bourne movies, probably the first one. I fairly quickly took it out and replaced it with the BR. Once I got displays capable of decent HDR, it hasn't been a problem.

I honestly have no idea of any complaint of Atmos movies lacking bass. I must have at least 150 of them, and have never once felt they lacked impact.

 

[JohnRice]

Anyway, regarding the original question, I do upgrade a lot of movies to UHD, largely because so many early BRs (and I bought a lot of them) were just plain bad. Overly compressed, blocked up shadows and such. Some even only had DD soundtracks. In a lot of cases (not all by any stretch) the UHD release was done properly when the BR wasn't. A lot of them are completely worth the purchase, especially on favorite movies. The Bladerunner 4K is astounding. When it comes to new releases, I almost refuse to buy it if it isn't 4K.

 

[John Dirk]

When it comes to new releases, I almost refuse to buy it if it isn't 4K.

I generally agree but look forward to the day when consistent and decent HDR for projectors can be had for under 5K. Until then I buy them but don't always enjoy the visual experience.

 

[JohnRice]

I generally agree but look forward to the day when consistent and decent HDR for projectors can be had for under 5K. Until then I buy them but don't always enjoy the visual experience.

Fortunately, most disc releases have both.

 

[Douglas R]

I have a handful of upgrades from Blu-ray to 4K. The Ten Commandments, Bridge on the River Kwai, Guns of Navarone, It's a Wonderful Life, Alfred Hitchcock Classics Collection Vol 1 and Spartacus. I have several others where I never had the Blu-ray such as Star Trek TMP and Alien. Quite honestly I have trouble seeing anything other than a very minor difference in picture quality on my 60" LG TV, so it seems pointless buying many. 4K does seem to have caught on in a big way in the UK which rather baffles me as not many people here have huge displays.

 

[OLDTIMER]

I view my movies 3 metres from a 55-inch Panasonic OLED. At this distance I don’t see any difference in resolution between 2K and 4K discs. As for HDR, sometimes it looks good, at other times it sometimes causes eye-strain. I bought my 4K player 2 years ago and no longer bother to buy the more expensive 4K discs. My “demonstration quality” discs are all 2K, not 4K! Chacun à son gout.

 

[John Dirk]

Quite honestly I have trouble seeing anything other than a very minor difference in picture quality on my 60" LG TV, so it seems pointless buying many.

Not pointless if you want the best audio mix!

 

[Stephen_J_H]

A few simple rules for me:

1. A preference for large format films, as these show considerable improvement in UHD.
2. Productions originated and finished on film. By this, I mean I tend to avoid anything that was finished as a 2K DI because even though it may show a slight improvement, it's not enough to justify a rebuy.
3. Productions finished at 4K or more for DI. These are intended for release on UHD, and ideally will be "killer apps"
4. I'm not as much of an audio stickler as some, but if a DTS:X or Dolby Atmos mix exists for a film, it should be on the disc; if the movie is older and will not benefit from such a mix, don't bother.
5. Judicious use of HDR. HDR for HDR's sake? Not for me. It's a tool that should be used to reproduce the theatrical experience, not overwrite it. If a film is in intense HDR in the cinema, fine; just don't engage in revisionist HDR grading.

 

[YANG]

Not pointless if you want the best audio mix!

however... not all UHD releases may come with atmospheric surround sound treatment or remaster from either camps... DTS or Dolby... or even Auro3D. some 4K releases even comes just with DD/DTS 5.1(?!!)

 

[Alan Tully]

I have a handful of upgrades from Blu-ray to 4K. The Ten Commandments, Bridge on the River Quay, Guns of Navarone, It's a Wonderful Life, Alfred Hitchcock Classics Collection Vol 1 and Spartacus. I have several others where I never had the Blu-ray such as Star Trek TMP and Alien. Quite honestly I have trouble seeing anything other than a very minor difference in picture quality on my 60" LG TV, so it seems pointless buying many. 4K does seem to have caught on in a big way in the UK which rather baffles me as not many people here have huge displays.

Yes, I think we tend to have small lounges in the UK, not great for projection. My Panasonic OLED (I love the picture on a Panasonic TV) is 49" (I think), so yes, not a lot of difference seen. When they do a good remaster & you have to buy the 4K to see it, then yes. Reading over at blu-ray.com, I get the feeling that the 4K badge is a very popular reason to rebuy a disc, maybe all a bit emperor's new clothes, but anything that helps sell discs is good news. I'm not above it all, if Warner releases a 4K of Ben-Hur (a film I haven't looked at in 4-5 years) I just know I'd have to buy it, even though the Blu-ray looks stunning.

 

[Clayking38]

I have a 55" 4k Samsung in my bedroom. My main viewing TV is 2k and 3D capable so there's no incentive to upgrade discs. Frankly I don't see enough difference on a 55" set to upgrade unless I'm buying a title for the first time and it includes a BD disc.

 

[YANG]

...My Panasonic OLED (I love the picture on a Panasonic TV) is 49" (I think), so yes, not a lot of difference seen. When they do a good remaster & you have to buy the 4K to see it, then yes...

i often use the red bean theory to explain to friends and relatives whenever they popped the questions of whats the difference between FHD and UHD, what choice to make when come to choosing one for their new apartment or buying as a replacement or upgrade.

the theory is pretty simple, take 2 identical plates, with same size, fill one with Japanese big red bean, and another with Chinese red bean which is relatively half the size of the Japanese bean. put them on a table, and walk a distance, roughly 4~5m away or even a floor away if they're living in a landed property, and look back at the 2 plates of beans. the Chinese red beans because of its size, signifies 4K UHD while the Japanese beans is 2K FHD. were they able to tell which one is a plate of beans while another probably a marroned-reddish soup?
the experiment is to tell them, there are few factors that affect their perception on an image, which mostly depends how they choose their TV size, placing position of TV away from their sweet spot, as well as source limitation.

you couldn't tell the difference, if your TV is placed a certain distance away. and the width, or wideness of the image occupies less than 50% on your straight view. the major difference you can tell... is certainly some details which due to technical limitations, cannot be projected on poorly spec'ed or constructed LED/miniLED backlight TVs/Displays.

 

[Nick*Z]

For me, the upgrade is solely measured on mode of presentation. I have several flat screens in my home with native 4K resolution, ranging in size from 65" to 85" and have to say that at an acceptable viewing distance, many 4K titles 'improvement' is negligible at best. However, I also have a dedicated home theater set up in my lower level with an 8ft. high and 16" wide (for scope only, VistaVision, and Academy ratio obviously vary here) viewing screen and on that venue the virtues of 4K well outweigh anything Blu-ray is capable of offering.

That said, there have been some VERY fine Blu-ray mastering efforts over the decades that look positively spectacular even on that large format set-up. So, all I'm trying to say is that if you are completely satisfied with the way you have been viewing your content until now, I really don't see the point in spending again for 4K unless (A) you are a total purist for the visual representation and (B) have the necessary deep pockets to retool your collection as titles become available in the latest and greatest mode of presentation.

I think often we get caught up in how great something looks we forget that the primary focus of home theater viewing should be to become and stay engrossed in the virtuosity of its storytellers. Presentation surely ranks as part of that experience - but not all. Pride of workmanship in the content itself and performance, direction and screenwriting far outlast a razor-sharp image of two hours of your life you can never get back if the content is crap. Just saying.

 

[Thomas T]

I think often we get caught up in how great something looks we forget that the primary focus of home theater viewing should be to become and stay engrossed in the virtuosity of its storytellers. Presentation surely ranks as part of that experience - but not all. Pride of workmanship in the content itself and performance, direction and screenwriting far outlast a razor-sharp image of two hours of your life you can never get back if the content is crap. Just saying.

I couldn't agree more! While, of course, the ideal is a pristine transfer made from the best source available in the best possible format, it's the film itself that matters. If a film is compelling in its narrative, its acting and presentation, I'm pulled in and things like faded color, scratches and marks, hissy audio (hell, even P&S) etc. suddenly fade away as I get absorbed in the film. A piece of junk in a razor sharp 4K transfer from the original camera negative, 7.1 audio may look incredible but it's still a piece of junk. Yet there are those for whom the look of the film is all ("I don't buy DVDs anymore or even blu rays if I can help it. If it's not in UHD, I'm not interested").

 

[dpippel]

I think it goes without saying that for most people here, the film itself is of utmost importance. For example, I'm not going to sit through Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen 20 times just because the 4K presentation is amazing, but we can still appreciate the technical side of things as a part of the whole experience. Then there's the subjectivity factor to consider. What I think is a great movie may very well be someone else's stinker, and that's perfectly fine. I don't expect to see eye-to-eye with everyone at HTF on every film being discussed. If someone thinks that Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is fantastic cinema and loves to watch it over and over in 4K, more power to them. There's room for all tastes and opinions.

On the flip side of the presentation issue, I can be watching Citizen Kane, but if the source is a crappy, edge-enhancement-riddled DVD release full of mosquito noise, scratches, and lousy black levels, THAT will also certainly take me out of a film. I can only tolerate so many video/audio issues before they overwhelm what's on-screen, no matter how much of a "masterpiece" it is.

 

[John Dirk]

i often use the red bean theory to explain to friends and relatives whenever they popped the questions of whats the difference between FHD and UHD, what choice to make when come to choosing one for their new apartment or buying as a replacement or upgrade.

the theory is pretty simple, take 2 identical plates, with same size, fill one with Japanese big red bean, and another with Chinese red bean which is relatively half the size of the Japanese bean. put them on a table, and walk a distance, roughly 4~5m away or even a floor away if they're living in a landed property, and look back at the 2 plates of beans. the Chinese red beans because of its size, signifies 4K UHD while the Japanese beans is 2K FHD. were they able to tell which one is a plate of beans while another probably a marroned-reddish soup?
the experiment is to tell them, there are few factors that affect their perception on an image, which mostly depends how they choose their TV size, placing position of TV away from their sweet spot, as well as source limitation.

you couldn't tell the difference, if your TV is placed a certain distance away. and the width, or wideness of the image occupies less than 50% on your straight view. the major difference you can tell... is certainly some details which due to technical limitations, cannot be projected on poorly spec'ed or constructed LED/miniLED backlight TVs/Displays.

Apparently, none of your friends have projectors or dedicated rooms.