Screenshot Comparisons 4K

[Geoff D]

Thanks, that's what I'm seeing.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

I am also surprised how a significantly different look is Ok for almost all movies as long as it is created or approved by somebody close enough to the production.

Clearly it is possible to get what basically amounts to the DCP converted to 3840x2160, complete with DCI P3 gamut and 10 bits but then there does not seem to be much of a demand for that. Judging by what can be read on this and other forums it is now OK to alter movies from how they looked in 2D in theaters and people who still want to emulate that look will have to stick with Blu-ray.

I would be happy to get the original AND the altered look but I doubt this will happen very often. It will be mostly HDR even for movies that never were intended to look that way.

To be fair, the "look" that the filmmakers wanted was created on camera. They just had to make sacrifices for the regrade down to the rec 709 color space and 100 nits. Now for the first time a movie can look exactly how it was captured on film. Nothing is being added that isn't already on the negative. And if the filmmaker approves of that (and nearly all of them are excited about this because for the first time since they were on the set, they can see how it was shot), then why is that a bad thing? I don't get it.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Blu-ray.com started uploading 4K screenshots for their reviews.

Some examples:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-M...lu-ray/147430/

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-L...lu-ray/147732/

More will follow.

Awesome!

[MattPerdue]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

To be fair, the "look" that the filmmakers wanted was created on camera. They just had to make sacrifices for the regrade down to the rec 709 color space and 100 nits. Now for the first time a movie can look exactly how it was captured on film. Nothing is being added that isn't already on the negative. And if the filmmaker approves of that (and nearly all of them are excited about this because for the first time since they were on the set, they can see how it was shot), then why is that a bad thing? I don't get it.

No, the "look" is done in post production. A film rarely, if ever, looks like what was "created on camera".

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

To be fair, the "look" that the filmmakers wanted was created on camera. They just had to make sacrifices for the regrade down to the rec 709 color space and 100 nits. Now for the first time a movie can look exactly how it was captured on film. Nothing is being added that isn't already on the negative. And if the filmmaker approves of that (and nearly all of them are excited about this because for the first time since they were on the set, they can see how it was shot), then why is that a bad thing? I don't get it.

What's captured on film/digital and what is intended to be seen are often two very different things. I'm amazed that filmmakers even let their films out of the door or spent so much time lighting them in the first place if the traditional SDR ways - and I don't just mean 709 8-bit consumer video but XYZ 12-bit theatrical digital masters - were/are as horribly restrictive as the pro-HDR lobby say they are.

BTW I'm not disputing the outright benefits that y'all are seeing, I'm really not, it just gets a little bit Kool-Aidy after a while to keep hearing that everything I've seen up until this point, even in the cinema, has been some rank bastardisation of the filmmaker's true intent. Heck, I read something from the VFX supervisor on Quantum of Solace who said that the movie, as shot and theatrically mastered, fell almost entirely within the range of 709 anyway when doing the trim pass.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

What's captured on film/digital and what is intended to be seen are often two very different things. I'm amazed that filmmakers even let their films out of the door or spent so much time lighting them in the first place if the traditional SDR ways - and I don't just mean 709 8-bit consumer video but XYZ 12-bit theatrical digital masters - were/are as horribly restrictive as the pro-HDR lobby say they are.

BTW I'm not disputing the outright benefits that y'all are seeing, I'm really not, it just gets a little bit Kool-Aidy after a while to keep hearing that everything I've seen up until this point, even in the cinema, has been some rank bastardisation of the filmmaker's true intent. Heck, I read something from the VFX supervisor on Quantum of Solace who said that the movie, as shot and theatrically mastered, fell almost entirely within the range of 709 anyway when doing the trim pass.

I agree it's a gray area Geoff. The filmmaker obviously has to take into account the limitations of the finished product vs what's being shot on film. But if those limitations weren't there then the film would have been graded much differently. So the beef seems to be that the UHD releases have to match exactly like was shown in the theaters, but if they can look better than that I don't mind, IF the filmmaker approves. No one was seeing 4k resolution in the theater either so it's ironic that it gets a pass and the 10 bit HDR doesn't.

I'm not coming across any complaints about excessive HDR from people who have seen these transfers (at least I don't remember any). I don't think the difference has a much an impact as it may seem. Probably 95% of the movie looks the same.

Anyway this ground has been covered many times and I know you're fairly neutral on this, and I don't want to get drawn into the same arguments with the usual HDR skeptics.

[42041]

The supposed reference UHD disc is up in 4K too:
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-S...7/#Screenshots

I'm kind of surprised at how shoddy these releases look close-up (assuming these screenshots are captured correctly). Smurfs 2 is a 4K DI from the Sony F65, no? That camera's oversampled 4K is no joke.

[dvdmike]

Can't make the shots work on my set

[pawel86ck]

Originally Posted by MattPerdue

No, the "look" is done in post production. A film rarely, if ever, looks like what was "created on camera".

That's true, but if people responsible for post production could work from the start with HDR in mind, they would most likely never erase details like entire sun in mad max BD for example .

[MattPerdue]

To be fair, most of us can't really get an idea of how these really look since most of us don't have HDR-capable monitors to look at these through. And I say that as an HDR skeptic myself.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by 42041

The supposed reference UHD disc is up in 4K too:
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-S...7/#Screenshots

I'm kind of surprised at how shoddy these releases look close-up (assuming these screenshots are captured correctly). Smurfs 2 is a 4K DI from the Sony F65, no? That camera's oversampled 4K is no joke.

Yeah they really brightened up this movie. Others like San Andreas, Wild or Maze Runners only the highlights look brighter. Which I think should be the best way to go. The average brightness should remain the same.

[MattPerdue]

Originally Posted by pawel86ck

That's true, but if people in post production could work from the start with HDR in mind, they would most likely never erase details like entire sun for example.

If we're talking about Fury Road, I'm not sure given how that film was graded to look.

But that fact remains they didn't work from the start with HDR in mind. Hence (for someone like myself anyway) it shouldn't be given an HDR grade now.

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by 42041

The supposed reference UHD disc is up in 4K too:
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-S...7/#Screenshots

I'm kind of surprised at how shoddy these releases look close-up (assuming these screenshots are captured correctly). Smurfs 2 is a 4K DI from the Sony F65, no? That camera's oversampled 4K is no joke.

All the screen shots posted today are worthless unfortunately. The washout causes lifting of shadows.

[pawel86ck]

All the screen shots posted today are worthless unfortunately. The washout causes lifting of shadows.

These SDR screenshots looks very bad compared to the previous PNG screenshots from "scorpiontail60" post (I think different HDR to SDR conversion method is to blame). But what about these HDR screenshots? Can you watch them somehow with HDR enabled on your JS9500?

[James Freeman]

Originally Posted by ray0414

All the screen shots posted today are worthless unfortunately. The washout causes lifting of shadows.

WRONG!
They bottom HDR images supposed to be watched on a ST.2084 screen not a Gamma 2.2 like you are viewing it now.
That is why the "SDR" (top ones) are corrected via Photoshop (simple Levels & Gamma manipulation) by blu-ray.com to look right on a Gamma 2.2 screen.

This should be explained on every 4k screenshot page before the "overbright" screenshots ruins HDR reputation.

[James Freeman]

Originally Posted by pawel86ck

These SDR screenshots looks very bad compared to the previous PNG screenshots from "scorpiontail60" post. But what about these HDR screenshots? Can you watch them somehow with HDR enabled on your JS9500?

The screenshots from "scorpiontail60" were in SDR already like the top ones you see on blu-ray.com.
scorpiontail60 player already did the HDR->SDR conversion because he (she actually) used an edid signal to the UHD player that told it the TV is SDR.

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by James Freeman

WRONG!
They bottom HDR images supposed to be watched on a ST.2084 screen not a Gamma 2.2 like you are viewing it now.

That is why the "SDR" (top ones) are corrected via Photoshop (simple Levels & Gamma manipulation) to look right on a Gamma 2.2 screen.

No, actually I'm not wrong.


99.99999999 percent of people don't have hdr monitors whether it be tv monitors or what. And of the people who do have hdr monitors, most aren't browsing the Internet on them.

For right here right now, completely worthless for the people on this forum.

[James Freeman]

Well, viewing an ST.2080 image on a Gamma 2.2 computer monitor will look "washout with lifted shadows"
For me, the bottom HDR images are MUCH more useful because the highlights are intact and I can experiment on them in photoshop and compare to the SDR Blu ray.

BTW, after manipulating the Levels in Photoshop it looks like the images are in REC.709 color space with ST.2084.
If Blu-Ray.com posted the REC.2020 & ST.2084 images it would look even more desaturated!
*I guess.

[pawel86ck]

Let's assume that UHD format would look like dvdmike wants (without HDR spec at all). Do you guys really belive that without HDR that flare in mad max would magically become red again? I dont think so, and I really belive your biggest concern it's not related to HDR technology at all, you just dont like when movie studio grades their films differently again, that's all.

If Blu-Ray.com posted the REC.2020 & ST.2084 images it would look even more desaturated!

I have bt2020 and HDR demos on my PC, and desaturation looks the same in these blu-ray.com HDR screenshots.

The screenshots from "scorpiontail60" were in SDR already like the top ones you see on blu-ray.com.

Yes, I know. But still samsung player did better job converting HDR to SDR compared to what they photoshoped for blu-ray.com reviews.

Samsung UHD player SDR captured picture is on the right. Left picture has way too strong contrast, looks like contrast enhancement or something.


Just look at Matt Damon face:
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...430&position=1
Colors looks just weird in this review screenshot

Screenshots from "scorpiontail60" looked much better.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by James Freeman

Well, viewing an ST.2080 image on a Gamma 2.2 computer monitor will look "washout with lifted shadows"
For me, the bottom HDR images are MUCH more useful because the highlights are intact and I can experiment on them in photoshop and compare to the SDR Blu ray.

BTW, after manipulating the Levels in Photoshop it looks like the images are in REC.709 color space with ST.2084.
If Blu-Ray.com posted the REC.2020 & ST.2084 images it would look even more desaturated!
*I guess.

You are wise, little grasshopper.