▶️Galaxy Quest 4K vs Blu ray Review and Comparison

[@forgottentomatoes7301]

If you found this video helpful, consider browsing these affiliate links to support the channel: Galaxy Quest 4K Steelbook 💿- amzn.to/3Bof4Dd Sony 4K Blu-ray 💲deals💲 - ebay.us/u5eaJs Universal/Warner Bros 4K Blu-ray 💲deals💲 - ebay.us/MZ0o1l *As an affiliate, this channel earns on qualifying purchases made using the links on this page, thanks for your support!

[@jefffan171]

The image looks natural and sadly I am in the geek club it seems. The movie was shot on film and mastered theatricality for its 1999 release. With it being film it will look softer compared to newer digital release as the stock used might not have been the highest grade as most of Dreamworks money was being put on Gladiator. But film will be largely in SDR with HDR highlights and expanded colours used to detail which it has. I'm impressed with film looking like film especially for $25

[@timwatson2935]

Being one of the very few people who has their home theater set up for "scope" movies, I wish more movies would handle aspect ratio switches this way. It is such a pain in the ass to deal with The Dark Knight/Rises and other movies that "expand" the frame, and I have half of somebody's head being projected on my ceiling all of the sudden and need to "zoom out" on the projector to get it to display properly.

[@IncognitoChild]

- I guess that is the downside of Nolan's earlier films - that were only partially shot in IMAX👍😵‍💫

[@rbarrington8911]

Thanks! I felt bad about buying the Blu-ray just before the 4K release was announced, for no reason it seems.

[@MCMarchives]

Presenting the original aspect ratio here is a GOOD thing and one that is long overdue. Too bad it's not finding its way back to a Blu-ray (or DVD). You seem to feel that the nerdier fans are being inconsistent, but how? A.I.-driven visual additions or new CGI, altered or missing/botched sound effects, and redone aspect ratios or framing (which MAY be done in the name of a better viewing experience but usually don't result in one) all fit in the category of things that are NOT faithful to the original film and misrepresent it, and people are right to object to them. Same goes for sound upmixes (IS the original 5.1 mix an option here?), which are just invisible colorization. If you can't handle the windowboxing (I admit it's longer than most such segments), zoom in on your TV or something, but let the original exist. Give it a chance to pull you in and you may not find the frame distracting.

[@forgottentomatoes7301]

The originality argument can be made on almost any release, but what looks good is always going to be subjective. Regardless, a home video release is a home video release. I see no reason why they could not have used seamless branching to give viewers a choice.

[@ThiloAdamitz]

@@forgottentomatoes7301 Oh? You liked the pan-and-scan versions of widescreen movies then?

[@forgottentomatoes7301]

@ThiloAdamitz, the fact that Pan and Scan even existed I think proves my point about home releases.

[@ThiloAdamitz]

@@forgottentomatoes7301 In other words: your opinions about home-media-releases can be ignored.

[@forgottentomatoes7301]

@ThiloAdamitz That's why they're called opinions👍

[@RoodeMenon]

I never understood the purpose of 4k editions when the vfx was done in 2k.

[@IncognitoChild]

I've never seen the point of a review moaning about the lack of dynamic range (HDR10) in the picture when there is a Dolby Vision alternative on the disc 👍🤣

[@MrCREWCRUSHIN95]

The vfx were rendered in 2k - but filmed out on 35mm. (Which is 4-6K resolution)

[@MrCREWCRUSHIN95]

The goal is to represent the film as it is meant to be. That means OAR and not hitting HDR with oversaturation that is not true to the original film. And you are on the wrong side of history if you are ok with AI upscaling of 2k sources shot on film.

[@Capri-j4i]

Appreciate your content hard work and honest reviews. Keep up with the awesomeness!! Just saved me $34 Canadian!Appreciate you

[@GuapoBhutto]

Good thorough breakdown. I appreciate the HDR data. Really crazy decision about that aspect ratio...

[@robertjacques4117]

That's how it was originally projected in the theater, it changed aspect ratios, from 1.33 to 1.85 to 2.35, they had to make the decision whether or not to leave the black bars on top, bottom and sides and I think it was a wise choice, it's the most accurate presentation of the movie thus far.

[@aarongilmore1254]

It should look how it looked theatrically whatever that was. Too many films now go for a more "DYNAMIC" release as you call it just because it's on 4k. The problem with that is, it looks like a completely different film.

[@douglasbriel6103]

It's supposed to look like classic Trek. Those hyper color frames look like a video game. The old lighting looks realistic. So the real reason to get this is the audio. Fixing damage to a film is one thing, but punching color to look like neon against perfect black doesn't even like when you are speaking to someone in real life.

[@IncognitoChild]

To be fair your review is somewhat half baked - you haven't made it clear whether you are reviewing only in HDR 10 (or Dolby Vision) nor have you made it clear which side of the fence you're sitting on. Are you a James Cameron fanboy who likes to have his image AI scrubbed and then have artificial film grain inserted or are you more interested in retaining the directors intent. I'm guessing you're for the former since you seem to think one of the most important things of a 4K Blu-ray release is that it should have an Dolby Atmos soundtrack (- not Dolby Vision????) There are plenty of new film releases that include Dolby Atmos and yet have no height effects which makes the inclusion totally pointless - I don't want sound effects repurposed or additional sounds added just to justify height effects. I guess they could have put a notice to inform you that the first 20 minutes of this film is as per the cinematic release so that you can make up your own mind whether you want to purchase it or not. I'm pretty certain I've read that this was mastered from a 2K source and as it's a digital effect ladened green screened film from the late 90s you can't really expect the image to be that sharp!..... I guess That's your point of view, it's just not mine. ...There again, if a film has been produced from a camera negative which has practical/in camera effects there is no excuse.

[@forgottentomatoes7301]

@IncognitoChild Most of what you're saying pretty much highlights the observation I made about the community. Why do you have to be on one side of the fence? And who decided the rules? And I've consistently rated grain heavy or "film like" if you wanna call it that, movies as some of the best 4Ks out there. Also, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I though Dolby Vision wasn't important. I think it's THE most important feature of 4K. I even hated to rate The Fugitive as the best 4K Upgrade for 2023 because it lacked Dolby Vision. I put almost the same importance on Atmos. I'm not going to get into a debate with you about the lack of perceived height effects, objects, or any of that as a justification for downplaying the benefit of Atmos, because we would be here all day. But I get your point, you're a Star Wars 4K77 kind of person. And if that's what you like, that's ok too.

[@IncognitoChild]

I'm interested in maintaining any film to the original directors intent. I have a very expensive Bowers & Wilkins Atmos setup but I don't want old films to be butchered for the sake of gimmickry. Adding sound effects that weren't there in the first place or repurposing sound effects is exactly that. James Cameron went to great lengths to explain how you should get the best picture quality when watching laserdiscs back in the day for his film releases now he just tells people to go to their mother's basement or in your case just generalising people that have a specific interest in film restoration as "clowns" because you can't be bothered to debate it 🤣 Try to debate the points I've already made to you - the first 20 minutes of the film will meant to look like that because it was supposed to represent a TV series. You haven't been clear on your HDR analysis as to whether it's 10 or Dolby Vision - So your point is unclear. The 2K source material with 1990s green screen CGI is as good as it's going to get so why are you moaning about it - do your research. Far easier to criticise something when you're sitting on a fence🙄

[@Alphadec]

4k should not be about nits. It should been about higher resolution.

[@robertjacques4117]

It's both, higher resolution plus it's hdr color grading

[@garypranzo9334]

It is more about color depth. 10 and 12bit rec2020 vs 8bit SDR for example

[@KayosWONER]

I wouldn't say that looks soft, the 4k looks better in all the blu ray side by sides...

[@borger9952]

yes it does look soft...

[@MrCREWCRUSHIN95]

The elephant in the room: If it was shot soft- nothing you can/should do about it.

[@megansavage7152]

I'm happy with my 4k

[@spazoq]

Take your Blu-ray, put it through Topaz and Uprez/HDR it, then mux the Atmos track from this to that. Kind of cool that you can do things like that at home today.

[@MrCREWCRUSHIN95]

Topaz obliterates grain, unfortunately. It's a very useful tool for upscaling 480 DVDs to 1080p - but I would never use it on a film for my collection. (Yes, there is a setting to add fake grain- but I would prefer a setting that gave you control over how much OG grain to keep)

[@spazoq]

@@MrCREWCRUSHIN95 Actually it's not "fake grain", and most movies you've watched over the last 50 years have had grain added for various reasons. Usually to match various film stock to each other, and in the case of special effect heavy movies to match the live action with the much higher and different grained optical special effects. And today, with digital special effects, they can add film grain that matches perfectly the natural grain of the different types of film stock used today (which isn't much, but there still are a few films made with film even today).