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.

Old? How about me....for me regular is still VHS video tape :)

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.

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.

You could say the movie shines on 4K.

@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.🏞️🔍

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.

@@connorpusey5912 Is this version better than 4k ? What's better in relation to common blu ray vs criterion ?

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 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.

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.

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

How about the 1999 dvd and the 1981 vhs

@@kascnef lol perfect reply

H4LFpint 6:10

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.

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.

Photography is much more important than colours

Indeed !!

My moonization good thing I have the 📀 yet there’s no blu credits at the end like the vhs 📼 from 1981

Colors pop and look more natural

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 KZfaq 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 KZfaq 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 KZfaq. 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 KZfaq 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 KZfaq.

Soon Weller :)

jamie somers Then enjoy Jamie !

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

Maybe !!

Dear Jeff, there is no Atmos only DTS-HD MA 5.1 !

My moonization Bummer!

@Inge Fossen buy the vhs

Efraim G it’s hdr

its really just changing highlights and shadows

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

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 know! I hate it when they do that, what's the point?

Yeah. Joker is 1.85

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?

It's out already

Justin Fencsak well duh It is now.

Thank God I own the 1999 dvd with the open matte transfer that kubrick approved before he died

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.

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 👍 !

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?

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.

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.