Screenshot Comparisons 4K

[Opips3]

Originally Posted by James Freeman

Opips.. special member indeed...

Ultra HD Blu-ray format has just been born, give it some time, it has HUGE potential.
We'll see to our amazement things we never seen before in terms of color and eye-popping light range.

Yes, you'll see on Super UHDTV has 12bits colours DCi-97% and HDR for 2017. I forget on use deep color.

Currently, UHDTV has 10bits colour DCi-90% and HDR. Remember UltraHD premier logo, must minimum 10 bits colour and HDR-10.

[James Freeman]

Yeah but 12bit actually is the least important factor of the picture because even properly dithered 8bit image can be measured as 12bit visually and by instrumentation.

It's the Color, Motion (HFR), and Dynamic Range that have the most significant apparent picture quality impact, not so much the resolution (IMO).
But we can have all of these combined and it WILL be mind-blowing!

[Opips3]

The companies brands manufacturing goal want to make build 12bits colors is too long fixing and too expensive. Not ready.

Change to 10bits colors is an afford it.

[James Freeman]

I agree.
Plus they still want to retain the rights to the DCI Master (12bit 4:4:4) and not sell us the exact same copy for home use on a disc.

Why would anyone go to the movies if in 3 months I can get that on a disc in its original format...
So we get 10bit 4:2:0 on the disc and not the original master.

PS.
I love your writing style, if it's intentional, you're one cool dude.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by James Freeman

I agree.
Plus they still want to retain the rights to the DCI Master (12bit 4:4:4) and not sell us the exact same copy for home use on a disc.

Why would anyone go to the movies if in 3 months I can get that on a disc in its original format...
So we get 10bit 4:2:0 on the disc and not the original master.

PS.
I love your writing style, if it's intentional, you're one cool dude.

Eh, the master has wayyyyy better compression anyway

[James Freeman]

The higher the compression bitrate the less the visible improvement, it's logarithmic.
The difference between 1Mbit/s and 2Mbit/s is HUGE, but between 20Mbit/s and 40Mbit/s (still in Blu-ray spec) is practically invisible.

UHD Blu-ray allows 128Mbit/s while DCI 2K allows 250Mbit/s maximum image bitrate.
Nobody uses the full 250Mbit/s for the DCI that delivered on a harddisk.

Diminished returns, you know...

EDIT:
Here is a thread about DCI sizes:
http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/f16/t000500.html
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-si...ts-for-showing
Most of them are between 100 and 150GB and around 30Mbit/s (that's for 2K 12bit 4:4:4 and 3D).

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by James Freeman

The higher the compression bitrate the less the visible improvement, it's logarithmic.
The difference between 1Mbit/s and 2Mbit/s is HUGE, but between 20Mbit/s and 40Mbit/s (still in Blu-ray spec) is practically invisible.

UHD Blu-ray allows 128Mbit/s while DCI 2K allows 250Mbit/s maximum image bitrate.
Nobody uses the full 250Mbit/s for the DCI that delivered on a harddisk.

Diminished returns, you know...

EDIT:
Here is a thread about DCI sizes: http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/f16/t000500.html
Most of them are between 100 and 150GB and around 30Mbit/s (that's for 2K 12bit 4:4:4 and 3D).

We are going to agree to disagree

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by James Freeman

UHD Blu-ray allows 128Mbit/s while DCI 2K allows 250Mbit/s maximum image bitrate.
Nobody uses the full 250Mbit/s for the DCI that delivered on a harddisk.

What kind of comparison is that? DCI uses JPEG2000 that is an image codec, while Blu-ray uses a VIDEO codec (HEVC). They work differently...

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

What kind of comparison is that? DCI uses JPEG2000 that is an image codec, while Blu-ray uses a VIDEO codec (HEVC). They work differently...

Very much so

[James Freeman]

Here is an article that compares HEVC and JPEG2000: http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/18...s/VPQM2013.pdf
HEVC is quite an improvement over x264 and can hold its own against jpeg2000 in terms of PSNR and MOS.
HEVC has usually 20 to 30% reduction in bitrate to appear the same quality as jpeg2000 (source).

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by James Freeman

Here is an article that compares HEVC and JPEG2000: http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/18...s/VPQM2013.pdf
HEVC is quite an improvement over x264 and can hold its own against jpeg2000 in terms of PSNR and MOS.
HEVC has usually 20 to 30% reduction in bitrate to appear the same quality as jpeg2000 (source).

From playing with them, not in the real world.
As far as maths goes? Sure

[I KEEL YOU]

Bram Stoker's Dracula - 2015 Mastered in 4K blu ray Vs Ultra HDTV rip

Groundhog Day - Japanese Mastered in 4K blu ray Vs 2160p Web DL

Taxi Driver - Blu ray Vs 2160p Web DL

Chappie - Blu ray Vs 2160p Web DL

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Bram Stoker's Dracula - 2015 Mastered in 4K blu ray Vs Ultra HDTV rip

Groundhog Day - Japanese Mastered in 4K blu ray Vs 2160p Web DL

Taxi Driver - Blu ray Vs 2160p Web DL

Chappie - Blu ray Vs 2160p Web DL

Yeah, Groundhog Day and Taxi Driver were my uploads....

Very little difference....

[pawel86ck]

When it comes to groundhog day comparison, for me clarity is way better even at first glance on this 4K screenshot, but I also have this impression, that 2160p WebDl screenshot have way too many artifacts (low bitrate maybe?)

BTW guys, that particular screenshot it's from exodus UHD review, and maybe someone could post Exodus Bluray 1920x1080 screenshot with the same scene?
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...678&position=5

[psicon]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Chappie - Blu ray Vs 2160p Web DL

It looks niiiiice. It looks good enough to eat girl.
Amazon are dispatching my UHDBD today. Should have it by Friday.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

Yeah, Groundhog Day and Taxi Driver were my uploads....

Very little difference....

Yeah but the encodes on those are not great

[jaaguir]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

it stands to reason that forced HDR regrades could end up being as sacrilegious (to some) as colourisation was to B&W, no?

I think comparing HDR grading of pre-2014 movies to colourization of B&W movies is really overdoing it.

I understand you were making a point. And of course you have sound reasons not to like retroactive HDR.

Maybe from a philosophic viewpoint they're comparable, as in "altering the original in any way is wrong". They both count that way.

But surely you must agree that the amount of altering, and the quality of the altering that one process and the other do to the original are really like in totally different leagues.

[Geoff D]

I'm just saying, if SOME people consider it to be as big an advancement as colour was to B&W, then jury-rigging older movies to fit that newer paradigm COULD be regarded as being as contentious as colourisation. It all depends on your POV, my main man.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I'm just saying, if SOME people consider it to be as big an advancement as colour was to B&W, then jury-rigging older movies to fit that newer paradigm COULD be regarded as being as contentious as colourisation. It all depends on your POV, my main man.

[LuminousMotion]

It's probably the effect that the standard Blus that are mastered in 4K, are a downscale of the full 4K scan. We're getting the benefit of full colour-binning and accuracy, while the grain gets filtered out. We get most of the important information presented at 1080P. Maybe if the 4K presentation were from an even higer-resolution source, we might get a similar benefit, but depending on the source, possibly not... dat lovely grain, though...

EDIT: Zooming into the native 4K downloads, I do see the added quality to them. There is more detail/noise to them, but more "life" , as well. I much prefer them, though I doubt I'll ever have a large enough fixed display , used at my typical viewing distance of choice, to apprecate it. It's good to know its' there, somehow, though.