Screenshot Comparisons 4K

[benhoppel]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It is? I thought it was an upscale lol

Does not look like an upscale. What is your evidence this is from 2K?

[andreasy969]

Knowing

Very nice. Thanks @everyone who said it's an upgrade and "made me" buy it. Glad I gave Lionsgate another chance with that one.

One or another cap may appear to be off, but they should all be correct - was a little pain with that disc though.

UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 nits) left, BD (upscaled) right

Disclaimer as to why the UHD-BD images may appear to be too dim:

[Show spoiler]Please note that the UHD-BD shots have been converted from HDR to SDR using special techniques, which drastically compresses the dynamic range of the original image (the color bit depth has been compressed as well). The UHD-BD shots are therefore not an accurate representation of the original HDR image - dynamic range, colors (tone and intensity) and contrast should be taken with a big pinch of salt and the main focus should be on comparing details. Typically, the image will appear too dark, may lack a certain "pop" and may at times also appear "boosted" when compared to the BD shots. The SDR conversion should still give you a good idea of the actual image of the UHD-BD though and one should also be able to at least catch a glimpse of the increased dynamic range. The BD shots have been upscaled for comparison purposes, but other than that should be accurate. You might also want to check out this post of mine (incl. the further link there) where I tried to show/explain this:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=589

[andreasy969]

The Post

UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 nits) left, BD (upscaled) right

Disclaimer as to why the UHD-BD images may appear to be too dim:

[Show spoiler]Please note that the UHD-BD shots have been converted from HDR to SDR using special techniques, which drastically compresses the dynamic range of the original image (the color bit depth has been compressed as well). The UHD-BD shots are therefore not an accurate representation of the original HDR image - dynamic range, colors (tone and intensity) and contrast should be taken with a big pinch of salt and the main focus should be on comparing details. Typically, the image will appear too dark, may lack a certain "pop" and may at times also appear "boosted" when compared to the BD shots. The SDR conversion should still give you a good idea of the actual image of the UHD-BD though and one should also be able to at least catch a glimpse of the increased dynamic range. The BD shots have been upscaled for comparison purposes, but other than that should be accurate. You might also want to check out this post of mine (incl. the further link there) where I tried to show/explain this:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=589

included because of different framing:

[andreasy969]

Blade Runner

UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 nits) left, BD (upscaled) right

Disclaimer as to why the UHD-BD images may appear to be too dim:

[Show spoiler]Please note that the UHD-BD shots have been converted from HDR to SDR using special techniques, which drastically compresses the dynamic range of the original image (the color bit depth has been compressed as well). The UHD-BD shots are therefore not an accurate representation of the original HDR image - dynamic range, colors (tone and intensity) and contrast should be taken with a big pinch of salt and the main focus should be on comparing details. Typically, the image will appear too dark, may lack a certain "pop" and may at times also appear "boosted" when compared to the BD shots. The SDR conversion should still give you a good idea of the actual image of the UHD-BD though and one should also be able to at least catch a glimpse of the increased dynamic range. The BD shots have been upscaled for comparison purposes, but other than that should be accurate. You might also want to check out this post of mine (incl. the further link there) where I tried to show/explain this:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=589

[Geoff D]

Wow, so much for people saying this and that about The Post, it absolutely smashes the BD in those caps. Look at that gorgeous grain! And as for that reframed shot, there's some vignetting on the left side of frame so it was probably embiggened to crop it out on the BD, though why this change didn't make it into the UHD is an interesting little aside (we saw the same thing with the caps on Sicario, the 1080p master having some garbage on the ground digitally erased in one shot whereas the UHD is untouched).

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Wow, so much for people saying this and that about The Post, it absolutely smashes the BD in those caps. Look at that gorgeous grain! And as for that reframed shot, there's some vignetting on the left side of frame so it was probably embiggened to crop it out on the BD, though why this change didn't make it into the UHD is an interesting little aside (we saw the same thing with the caps on Sicario, the 1080p master having some garbage on the ground digitally erased in one shot whereas the UHD is untouched).

Agreed. I noticed a big difference before I even clicked on the thumbnails.

[monstermidget]

That first close-up of Harry Ford (Cap 11) really highlights some of the annoying color noise issues that crop up throughout Blade Runner...esp the dancing red and green flecks and spots over faces (embiggen and check the bridge of his nose and his forehead and around his left temple and cheek).

[Geoff D]

Yeah, and on the shot of him leaning in close looking at the Vesper machine his hand is basically alive with that blocky green & magenta colour noise, that specific frame has plenty of it but it looks way worse in motion.

[monstermidget]

Yup...a mess.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

there's some vignetting on the left side of frame so it was probably embiggened to crop it out on the BD

Good eye as usual. Missed the vignetting.

Originally Posted by monstermidget

That first close-up of Harry Ford (Cap 11) really highlights some of the annoying color noise issues that crop up throughout Blade Runner...esp the dancing red and green flecks and spots over faces (embiggen and check the bridge of his nose and his forehead and around his left temple and cheek).

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yeah, and on the shot of him leaning in close looking at the Vesper machine his hand is basically alive with that blocky green & magenta colour noise, that specific frame has plenty of it but it looks way worse in motion.

Yes, and both caps are there because of it. And it does indeed look much worse in motion and is hard to show with the caps. Luckily (my) front projection tends to be more forgiving with stuff like that, because it just isn't that sharp.

Other than that (and note that I'm really far from being a film expert), I'm not 100% convinced yet, whether this is pure noise/a problem with the compression or just very "colorful grain" (or maybe sth. of both worlds). Thing is, that with cap #11 I can see the green on the BD as well for ex (only smoothed).

But whatever it is: Still love the pq even if this is an issue with the disc/encode. (Noticed some compression problems at any rate though, but again only when doing the caps.)

[Geoff D]

Grain doesn't exist in geometrically perfect blocks though, you know? Same thing with this sort of schmutz http://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=2&x=...1&l=0&i=9&go=1 in the Saving Private Ryan 4K disc; that's not anything to do with any photochemical process but is an entirely digital artefact, it should not be crapping out these chunks of noise that make the back of his hand look like it's made from LEGO. Nah, something screwy is going on with their encoders right now.

Most of the time people will mistake it for grain (I'm not throwing shade at you when I say that) and to be fair on most titles these artefacts are just about fine enough and fleeting enough to not be as much of a distraction as I found them to be on Blade Runner, which is by far the most egregious example I've come across.

Sad thing is if you strip out the colour from these images you can see how finely rendered the grain is in the luminance channel, these artefacts are living entirely in the chroma so it's not conventional macro-blocking by any means, it's something chroma specific and boy do I wish they could get a handle on it.

[andreasy969]

Thx. And no doubts here at all with your Ryan example.

[Synchg]

godamn i cant believe ridley scott went back, and re-graded blade runner again. i dont know if i should criticize his compulsiveness or admire and be grateful for it

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Wow, so much for people saying this and that about The Post, it absolutely smashes the BD in those caps. Look at that gorgeous grain! And as for that reframed shot, there's some vignetting on the left side of frame so it was probably embiggened to crop it out on the BD, though why this change didn't make it into the UHD is an interesting little aside (we saw the same thing with the caps on Sicario, the 1080p master having some garbage on the ground digitally erased in one shot whereas the UHD is untouched).

Thats cause 80-90% of people still don't understand the various wonders that HDR works on nearly every scene. They believe that if they dont see any blazing highlights, that hdr isn't there at all. The Post and Bladerunner (1989) have beautifully used HDR which brings out insane amounts of detail that's missing on the Blu rays.

[benhoppel]

The first still of "Blade Runner" shows the "evil" of colour subsampling. On the BD it's blurry like DVD, on the UHD it's sharp like 1080p but not UHD sharp.

[OutOfBoose]

I love how much less teal the final sequence of Blade Runner is on UHD.

[Xorp]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Blade Runner

UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 nits) left, BD (upscaled) right

Man that Blu-ray was total junk, even for 2007 standards.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by OutOfBoose

I love how much less teal the final sequence of Blade Runner is on UHD.

The whole thing's less teal, thankfully.

[OutOfBoose]

True, but I feel blue ambiance gets affected the most. For example, the interview scene is still greenish on UHD, even though it's more into cyan on UHD, than teal.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Grain doesn't exist in geometrically perfect blocks though, you know? Same thing with this sort of schmutz http://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=2&x=...1&l=0&i=9&go=1 in the Saving Private Ryan 4K disc; that's not anything to do with any photochemical process but is an entirely digital artefact, it should not be crapping out these chunks of noise that make the back of his hand look like it's made from LEGO. Nah, something screwy is going on with their encoders right now.

Most of the time people will mistake it for grain (I'm not throwing shade at you when I say that) and to be fair on most titles these artefacts are just about fine enough and fleeting enough to not be as much of a distraction as I found them to be on Blade Runner, which is by far the most egregious example I've come across.

Sad thing is if you strip out the colour from these images you can see how finely rendered the grain is in the luminance channel, these artefacts are living entirely in the chroma so it's not conventional macro-blocking by any means, it's something chroma specific and boy do I wish they could get a handle on it.

I watched the UHD BD of SPR the other night and caught a few instances of this. I also thought the disc looked good, but moments like this made the image a bit more digital looking for sure.

A few shots like this caught my eye too. http://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=2&x=...4&l=0&i=2&go=1