▶ Comparison of The Shining 4K (4K DI) Dolby Vision vs Regular Version
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 вер 2019
- 4K and HDR Conversion, Music remixed, Logo & Montage by Score Man from The3hirdEye PRODUCTION®
Technical Specifications: www.imdb.com/title/tt0081505/...
Amazon (US): www.amazon.com/The-Shining-4K... - Фільми й анімація
The Shining got a pretty good 4K transfer. i love it.
How about 8k
@@kascnef Native 7680x4320 is not possible with the 35mm film The Shining was shot on. 4K is about the max we will see with this film, although that is not necessarily a bad thing. Looks great, and really the difference between 4K and 8K in your living room isnt much. You would need a very large screen to see a noticeable difference in quality.
I saw the 4K version on the big screen on Oct. 1, 2019. I was really impressed with how crisp and clear everything looked. Not dated or degraded at all. Like looking through a window onto reality. Made me wonder if it was shot on film or video. It looked at times more like high resolution video. Very impressive!
So did I! One of the best movie going experiences ever!
Film of course! It's an excellent medium/format :)
There was no HD video back in 1980. So it was shot on film. Actually for me "video" sounds more like analog video on magnetic tape....for HD, 4K...etc you should specify DIGITAL VIDEO...And film is still the best choice!
The girl sitting next to me was eating chips loudly the entire screening.
well film looks better than (digital) video. assuming that's what you meant. so saying it looked more like that would be a negative. film rules. digital is just cheaper and easier to edit.
The Blu-ray is the "regular" version now... I feel old.
Old? How about me....for me regular is still VHS video tape :)
Your channels so underviewed I prefer this straightforward comparison vs hearing people talk about it
Oh yes I agree that this unbearably boring presentation is much better. 👍
@@randysalsman6992 It aint for everyone bud, I just care about picture quality comparisons. Go watch Brass Tax, Films at Home, AR Media and SpareChange reviews for entertainment
Much better than having some dork blabber and make jokes over the top of it.
Big increase in detail and the hdr looks great. Skintones look much more natural here. Already got the steelbook preordered. Thanks for the upload!
I saw an 85" screen advertising 8k last week omg i am not kidding it looked like the picture was coming out the screen like you could touch it and it wasnt even 3D, never seen anything like it i couldnt get my head around how amazing it looked.
@Repo man in time this will happen when it becomes affordable
8K is the best in resolution Even better than 4K that's for sure.🏞️🔍
Awesome! Looks to be a big improvement from the blu ray. I'm crossing my fingers they'll bring Kubrick's Barry Lyndon to UHD soon.
Barry Lyndon is my favorite movie. But I don’t care about a 4K Blu-ray because in my opinion the Criterion Blu-ray is the best version of it.
Wow the 4K transfer looks incredible, can't wait to eventually purchase this
I'm watching this on a little 720p phone and even then the difference is stunning. You can practically see every leaf on every tree in the outdoor shots. Skin tones look better too.
This is a night and day difference. Good Job Warner Brothers
You could say the movie shines on 4K.
To me, the 4k looks like it takes a lot of the "pop" out of the film? Makes it look more natural, yes. But I think what made The Shining so unique to begin with was that crisp vibrancy to the scenes. Like everything was "energized" with the old version. Thanks for the great comparison video, but think I'll stick with the oldie. :)
You really have to watch the 4K to really see what it brings to the table a Comparison doesn’t do a whole lot. The 4K brings the film to life with more realistic colours. The blu ray has a little to bright and the colours look to bright. The 4K transfer is beautiful
Prince Doppelganger Mmk yes.
One of the best 4K restoration! I can't wait for the Barry Lyndon in 4K, it must be gorgeous!
This looks far better than I anticipated. Can't wait to pick up the 4K steelbook next week!!
I liked the 2007 Blu-ray when I first got it but seeing them side by side you can really see it's faults. There's a clear jump in sharpness and detail, the contrast is much more even and not blown out in whites and lights, and the color saturation is much more even with natural skin tones. This is my most anticipated disk this week.
the only problem with the 4k version compared to the bluray is the fact that, 4k zooms in on the movies frame just by like 1-2% and i personally dont like that, but other than a little bit of a zoom in the frame. Whites/colours, Skin tones and all that look great. cant go wrong with either one!
Scottie Turner the Blu-ray has the same aspect ratio as the 4k
This movie was a movie well above the era, now it looks like a new generation movie.
I can’t wait till Tuesday to get mine!
One of my favorite movies, I have the regular blu-ray edition and it already looked great
4k version looks better. The scenes in the snow look awesome in 4K. The 4K looks great.
I wish they included the original theatrical mono track
@@kascnef as long as that film is being released by Warner Bros., I doubt that's gonna happen. This is why I'm glad that the Criterion Collection got a hold of Barry Lyndon - the Warner Bros. release of Lyndon was with a 5.1 surround sound mix, but Criterion restored the original mono mix. I have seen the vaguest of whispers suggesting that more of Kubrick's films are headed to the Criterion Collection in the near future, and I couldn't be happier - they know how to treat his movies a lot better than the folks at Warner.
Thanks for posting this. I've been anxiously awaiting its arrival. My copy comes Tuesday. I have always been impressed with the Blu, but this definitely kicks it up a notch, especially on those outdoor scenes and close-ups of Jack's face. WB did a great job.
It's a gorgeous 4k rescan but why crop the original? I have a feeling this will be re-released.
Now, I don't know if it's the UA-cam compression, but some of the indoor shots look very flat, and somewhat washed out. The outdoor shots look amazing. However, a lot of indoor shot do not look that good. Especially the gold room one. I thought that would pop!
I just got mine 4k blu ray of this movie the other day and it looked great on my OLED TV. You can't get an accurate sense of the HDR unless you watch it on an HDR capable TV.
@@curtisb3336 I figured. It's very inconsistent on here. I'm glad it's great. Looking forward to getting it myself.
You're criticizing the look of the original negative. The 2007 version was edited to increase saturation to unnatural levels. Take a look at Shelley's face at 1:55 and compare it to the next shot. Her face looks cartoonishly red in the former. With HDR, you're getting more accurate color with a wider gamut, and it is more true to the original negative.
I can personally vouch that this movie does not look washed out in full HDR. The transfer was done very well.
I think the Blu Ray looks just as good. I mean how many times can you really buy the same movie. I'm good with my Blu Ray.
Thanks for the love my friend!
Exactly what I say. You can’t get any better than the original set-in-Stone resolution of the original film. Blu-ray will suffice for most movies, especially older ones.
Connor Pusey But that’s the thing. Physical film can be scanned at higher resolutions indefinitely and you’d still get more detail. That’s why IMAX and 70mm in general is still regarded as more limitless than digital photography.
Thanks for awesome comparison!
Is it just me or does hdr make the movie more atmospheric?
The blu Ray looks better than 4K, it’s brighter and more vivid
How about the 1999 dvd and the 1981 vhs
@@kascnef lol perfect reply
Thank you very much for the comparison and it is in any case qualitatively an increase.
With best regards,
SANY 3000
Is the upgrade very noticable when watching the film, or is the regular bluray fine? I have that old one from 2007 😊
The 4K is wayyyyy better !!!
For being such an old/early Blu-ray master, it holds up extraordinarily well. But the 4K version looks absolutely stunning.
The captions are stuck on the 2007 blu ray anyone have a fix for this? The menu just has the extras on it no settings
I get kinda the impression that the 4K edition corrected the original colors in order to achieve a more life-like spectrum, but at the same time I feel they meddled with the photography direction.
Photography is much more important than colours
Why you gotta hit me with the jump scares
H4LFpint 6:10
Seems like 4% of the picture is cropped out of the 4K. For example @ 1:52, look at the big spoon hanging on the left edge of the frame. Or @ 3:14, the picture frames on the wall.
I picked up the movie on oct 1st and its amazing. Color and clarity are way better than the previous bluray. The hdr implementation makes the movie way more atmospheric and darker tone. The scene with the woman coming out of the tub is so detaled its way more creepy than the bluray. The bluray that comes with this set is remasterd as well but no hdr makes the picture worth always watching the bluray. The upgrade to dts hd master is awesome as well voices come in much clearer than the lpcm track before
This sold me on buying a 4K tv
I noticed some 4k shots look worse than blu-ray shots sure if you do side by side you can see some differences but the blu-ray is fine. I'm a Stanley Kubrick fan will definitely purchase.
Skin tones are infinitely better on the 4k.
cool video ....thanks !!
There seems to be some minor cropping on the new transfer?
Indeed !!
My moonization good thing I have the 📀 yet there’s no blu credits at the end like the vhs 📼 from 1981
Love it 👏💪👍
Excellent job on this by warners... In the moving image it actually looks like film ,the grain is perfect and the depth and solidity of the image is superb, Kubrick and the dp lense choices really stand out.. One big advantage over the blu ray here is the black and anything with snow.. I can't help but notice though in the stills your showing a pink hue, I'm assuming this is how your packaging the image to you tube which doesn't handle hdr all that well .
All my works are worked with the HDR palette Rec.2020. However, if you have a good calibration of your TV just activate your HDR !
@@Mymoonization Thanks, but both my TV and phone support HDR on UA-cam but your videos don't output in HDR automatically, why's that? 🤔
We can have a 4K rendering in Rec 709 of an HDR PQ element with the metadata, but not in real time. Because UA-cam is not able to broadcast HDR native sources like my screenshots. For the moment. Therefore I have to go through a gateway that allows a colorimetry just and faithful to that of Blu-Ray UHD on UA-cam. There is another aspect not to be neglected. This is the quantization depth of 12 or 16 bit files and the SMPTE standard for HDR, the Rec 2020, is called 4K of course.
Jaws is in 10 bit (Rec 2020) !
@@Mymoonization Thanks for sharing that. So UA-cam does support HDR video correctly, just not the HDR screenshots you use?
@@rashpalbhati Well "Correctly" is a big word. It all depends on the content and the quality of HDR. For example, you cannot transmit in Dolby Vision or HDR10+. That's why you have to go through gateways. If you have professional equipment like me (an color grading workstation with Canon DP-V3120 monitor with MTI Film updates Cortex v5.2) then you can output an image with its original HDR as faithfully as possible even on UA-cam.
Why do always transformings into 4k casue a little damage to imformations of the edge of the frame? So sad.
Fantastic material
Hmm, the 4K is darker and blurry... think I’ll keep my regular Blu-ray.
Craig M I have the dvd 📀 in full frame
Craig M I agree
Darker? Sure. Blurry? Certainly not more than the 2007 version
4K pretty much just highlights things and makes things darker and lighter than Blu-ray which is not bad
@@superflashdan3561 and you know, 4 times the resolution
I was listening to this with airpods and 4:51 made me jump out of my nostrils 😂
Does this 4K transfer restores the two-minute coda that the projectionists sent back to the British Warner Bros.?
Very nice🤗
Is it my idea or the aspect ratio is different in the 4K presentation? This presentation shows less on the edges...please check this out 🤔🤔🤔
This is prob my favorite horror movie ever glad to see its worth the upgrade to uhd
Colors pop and look more natural
My favorite movie of all
Very nice
Takes all the life out of it
I'm gonna see it in the theater Oct. 1st
Why the image on the 4K looks way way darker?
Efraim G it’s hdr
its really just changing highlights and shadows
I would really love to see the Thing get a 4k upgrade as well but I dunno if they will ever release it
Soon Weller :)
I've been debating buying a 4K player just to get the Shining, but I've gone with the Blu Ray and hoping my 4K TV upscales it at least a little bit.
Why is the 4K version cropped? Aladdin on 4K was uncropped.
The original theatrical aspect ratio for The Shining is 1.85:1 as per Kubrick's own notes.
@@dan_hitchman007 That' s not what @Valenzuelas Studios means. The sides of the screen show less of the image than in the standard bluray version. That has nothing to do with aspect ratio.
@@peterpeters1662 the ratio is 1.43
The problem is the screenshots on my 2007 blu ray look very different to these - no where near as red.
Great selection of scenes!! Excellent HDR! Hope the Atmos is equally impressive!!!
Dear Jeff, there is no Atmos only DTS-HD MA 5.1 !
My moonization Bummer!
@Inge Fossen buy the vhs
0:58 look at the trees just suddenly turning into trees with a bunch of leafs. I've seen this movie a hundred times at least since the 80's. Not this. Goosebumps.
There’s a tonne of bullshit talk in the comments saying the restoration is hands down the winner. I beg to differ. Facial and object detail /clarity have definitely improved but colours often appear muted in the restoration which affects the tone of the film. Just compare the outdoor shot of the Overlook hotel and frozen Jack. He looks too pink in the restoration where as he looks like a frozen block in the original blu. Also check out the foyer scene. Colours are dulled and the light exposure from the lights flat. For me there are pros and cons for each release. No hands down winner.
It’s kinda silly to have this video in 1080p if we’re trying to show off a 4K release
Much finer detail and better, more natural colors. I have to pick this release up
1980? It looks like it was filmed yesterday in 4K!
one of my favourite classic horror movies and by Stanley Kubrick
Got the Sony AG9 coming Saturday - this is my first 4K purchase
jamie somers Then enjoy Jamie !
I'm sorry but I don't see much difference...to be honest the colors are brighter w/the blu-ray version.
tgrujic1965 what are you watching this video on?
@@rafaelnahafahik7781 My Ipad...the extreme close-ups do look better, but the other shots actually look darker or muted.
tgrujic1965 Is your brightness all the way up?
Was I the only one expecting Shilley Duval's face to change in the 4K edition?
Will you be doing pans labyrinth?
Maybe !!
Idk man, I have the European Blu-ray from 2011 and it looks a hell of a lot better than the screenshots you're showing from 2007.
Waiting for the HDR version.
Much more clarity but darker is some scnes, I'd say worth it.
I miss the old warner logo
So do I. The Warner shield logo, to me, signified old Hollywood, and that modern (for it's time, in the 70's thru early 80's) represents a leap for that studio into more gritty and realism. I can't stand the current version of studio logos...all animated to an inch of their life. Miss the old Paramount, Columbia, Universal, 20th Century-Fox, and MGM of the past.
@@e.s.9080 the big w logo was when warner communications adopted it as their corporate logo saul bass ironically also created many other logos like hanna barbera a t and t and others
@@kascnef We need it back for nostalgia sake and time to retire the Saturday morning cartoon colored shield.
@@e.s.9080 yup.
I just hope Leon Vitali was involved with this restoration, as he was likely one of the last to know how Kubrick REALLY wanted things to look, and, boy, was he picky!!!!!!!!
I don’t know I like the older one better. It feels more natural to the film.
I forgot I had the 4k version
Not really a fair comparaison since you don't compare the bluray included with the 4K which are both from the same restored master. There is no point to compare the old bluray from 2007 with the new 4K from 2019. I have compared both 2019 bluray and 4k and the differences are not so spectacular at all.
Wow 4K is way better 😮
The remastered colors are gorgeous!! The only issue is I don’t like how it cuts some of the edges of the frames
I know! I hate it when they do that, what's the point?
I'm still pissed that it's not 1.85. What the hell is wrong with WB?
Yeah. Joker is 1.85
Looks great, however it seems movies on disc is on it’s Way out! Sadly, but i don’t know anyone who still has a Blu Ray player. It’s all about apple tv, smart TV’s and chromecast
Heeeeers johnny!!!
This 4K transfer looks a lot better than Return of the Jedi
Much better than the 1989 Batman 4K
I thought this hasn’t released yet ?
It's out already
Justin Fencsak well duh It is now.
Can you do Cornetto Trilogy please!
Not that much difference but still pretty awesome
Never approve cropping, why they did that!?
Thank God I own the 1999 dvd with the open matte transfer that kubrick approved before he died
I couldn’t find the 4K disk anywhere so I just bought it on Apple TV
The original colors he was going for were much better than the new renditions of this and 2001.
Shame it's just the US version not the European cut. Which I think is far better.
I was so disappointed when I got my 4K of The Shining yesterday and it was the US cut only.
That's the cut I am most familiar with as I have lived in the US since late 1982
@@kascnef So you've not seen the UK/Euro director's cut then?
It chapter 1
I think, is very worthy be carefully, because 4K movie, especially if is old classic, it can be failed 4K resolution, because my Ghostbusters 4K blu ray is failed, picture quality is even that worse than dvd, it's fake or failed, i m not satisfy about that at all.
I was thinking how both images looked a little shit.....
then I realised my playback was 480p (!)
I must be missing something because I don't see that much of a difference other than some of the lighting in some scenes.
Dear John
look closely at the contrast with the characters it's quite obvious including the background in some scenes.
And don’t forget to activate your HDR 👍 !
The only reason I didn't upgrade is the lack of atmos or dts x
I find I'm thoroughly on the opposite end of this debate. I find myself annoyed that priority tends to be given to these surround sound remixes of the sound track, as the film was originally released in mono and as far as I'm concerned the top priority for adding a soundtrack to the film should be one that is faithful to the director's original intentions. I'm not against the idea of an Atmos or even a 5.1 mix, but the original mono mix needs to be present.
@@michaelinlofi in that case this movie is not available in its original aspect ratio anywhere. Probably only on vhs. About the audio I understand your point but I think Kubrick would have approved the atmos or dts x audio if he were alive. Just like all modern day directors who supervise their movie transfers make use of the technology.
@@Kashif314 interesting thought on availability of technology, but mono wasn't a technical limitation of the time. Most films of the time would have been mixed to stereo for example, and Dolby Pro Logic definitely existed, meaning that 4.0 surround sound was possible from the stereo track on a 35mm print. I can't speak with absolute certainty with this, but it seems to me from this that Kubrick made a deliberate choice to keep his films in mono, save for 2001 which made use of the full six channels present on 70mm film (the sound design in his movies tends to be more functional than it is flashy).
Again, I am not totally against a remix (times are a-changing after all), but having the original available in high definition as well would be nice is all. The Criterion edition of Barry Lyndon comes with both the original mono track and the new 5.1 track, so having both is definitely a bonus
@@michaelinlofi I agree with you and before reading your comment I was gonna say about Criterion but you know that already. I agree that they should include the original track always with the relase for the fans. Also The shining is not available in its original aspect ratio anywhere and not even on DVD. Was available only on VHS for the old CTR kind of TVs as it use to fit the screen but would look very odd on today's TVs with huge black bars on right and left side.
Ah that's why the 4k version is costs 560 pesos compared to the original version which only costs 150 pesos
A quite good upgrade but not among the greatest movie transported from film
These are stills and the 4k stills are not in HDR. You have to see it with your own eyes. It looks very, very good.
The 4k muted the impossible window. No deal...
What does that mean? I’ve wondered if this 4K Blu-Ray is how the film was originally supposed to look like, or if the original Blu-ray is.
@@connorpusey5912 when jack walks into Ullman's office the window is considered an impossible window or based on the layout of the overlook it cannot be there( watch room 237 doc). The glare from the window is very striking on purpose. The 4k made it dull. It would be like adding an electrical cord to the TV in the Colorado lounge with CGI.
PBR Steve
Ohh. Gotcha. That’s what I fear about certain Blu-ray releases of movies. They alter the original film.
It’ not even that serious lol. I’m sure it looks way different in person and even the details definitely stick out more than the glare.
The 4k is dark
4k edition looks so dark.
4:43. whites are clipped. :/