Recently posted related deals
This box set was only released few days ago, great Xmas gift!
Cheapest price on Ebay is around $150-$140
Coupon from this deal
You can also use
I wonder how good the quality is. I own the 8-film boxset (the normal 1080p one), and the first few movies are not very clear. They have a lot of noise, and look like they contrast-stretched the cr*p out of it. Scenes which are meant to be dark have been made bright as daylight. Also, the first few movies are not in HD Audio.
Let's hope they remastered it properly for the 4k version.
I can't speak for the first 4 movies, but I own the last 4 on 4K and they look fantastic in my opinion, even with movies 3-8 being fake 4K that's just 2K upscaled. The first 2 are true 4K though, so they should look even better.
That's strange…. why would the first be better? Or were they filmed using film, which allows higher-res remastering?
I imagine the last few movies were filmed digitally using higher than 2k resolution…
Yep, the first 2 were shot on film, mastering done in 4K. The others were shot digitally and mastered in 2K. Crazy that in this day and age digital is only now catching up to the quality film can produce.
The first two were filmed on 35mm film according to Real or Fake 4K, not too sure why only the first two are true 4K, but even the upscaled 2K versions look impressive on my TV.
@mr_me450: Crazy that my mobile phone can do higher-res filming than movie cameras could just a few years ago. Surely they captured it in higher res than 2k?
They were ALL shot on film, however the mid 2000s was when Hollywood started EDITING 100% digitally. Once the film is scanned in and mastered at 2K, it can never be higher than that. An example of Hollywood's shortsightedness.
Here are the reviews for the first two films on UHD Blu-Ray. These are new 4K scans and is meant to be a massive improvement on the average looking blu-rays.
@Make it so:
2001 Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone
Half a generation ago
@OzBargin: I said "just a few years ago". I have been referring to the last few movies (e.g. 7 & 8) not even being mastered in 4k. The first were shot in film, so they can be remastered at any resolution (though the film will have physical limitations of course).
And stop making me feel old.
@edshays: Ah okay, thanks for clearing that up. It's a shame they went about it like that, they still look good the way they are but you can't beat true 4K.
Different director from memory did the first 2. Probably preferred higher resolution cameras. I think he did the first 2 Home Alones too, personally I thought his adaptions were the best.
@ruddiger7: 'higher resolution cameras' don't exist for film. Everything was just shot on 35mm film (a few exceptions for 16mm and 70mm). Once the analog world of film touches digital, it's converted to a 'resolution' and kept that way. Before digitally editing, they physically cut film, and coloured it photo-chemically, so it never lost the full potential of it's 'resolution'.
Pretty much any film made before say 2003ish has the potential to be re-scanned at 4K. There were a very small view who planned ahead (Sony were scanning and digitally editing Spider-man, Casino Royale etc in 4K). Sadly, even today, most films shot at high resolutions are still edited at 2K and stuck that way forever.
@edshays: Interesting, i guess that explains the high number of older movies making the 4K transition.
@Make it so: Professional cameras have much larger and more sophisticated sensors than phone cameras. Just because your phone advertises as '4K' doesn't mean it's anywhere close to the level of detail and capability of those cameras. Also, often it's not an issue with the camera but more with editing. It takes a lot of resources to edit at 4K, particularly visual effects, which is why many of these digitally mastered films were done so at 2K.
@edshays: I know resolution does not apply to film, but I thought most films were shot with digital cameras nowadays. Maybe I am wrong.
@Make it so:
You are right. I once saw a graph and 2012 was the year when shooting digitally became the majority and shooting on film became the minority. Either way, they're both edited digitally anyway, so the difference is nothing more than aesthetical.