Screenshot Comparisons 4K

[aphid]

I mean that, among the 4k screencaps, number 40 looks like a native 4k render while the rest have jagged, blurry edges and other artifacts.

[andreasy969]

OK, got it. And now that you mention it, #40 looks particularly good in that regard indeed, but I could only guess as well. (I do have a hard time pointing out any artifacts there at any rate (and was just looking for it), but few of the other caps at least also come close imo.)

[andreasy969]

Sherlock (S1 Ep1)

Major noise difference (and too many caps to show it), the HDR, most of the time, doesn't reveal more highlight detail (and you often need the higher nits caps to see that it's all still there - so I'll call it slightly "gimmicky" - at any rate the BD did a good job with the highlights), detail improvement is often quite nice.

Looks much better overall. (Opposed to usually, I didn't watch the whole thing yet though.) Both UHD and BD are UK. (And the 50i/25fps BD was a pain in the ass.)

EDIT: Forgot one comment ... The aliasing on the BD in #7 doesn't look that bad in motion (couldn't capture it any better from the 50i BD at any rate though and the frame did not matter either).

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/125916

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

Disclaimer as to why the UHD-BD images may appear to be too dim and please ignore any off-looking colors:

[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 (which is by design when the caps are done at 200 nits; on its own they should be viewed with monitor brightness set to 200 nits), 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:
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=589

1.

2.

3. (#3 1200 nits)

4. (#3 1200 nits)

5.

6. (#3 900 nits)

7. (#3 1200 nits)

8. (#3 1100 nits)

9.

10.

11. (#3 1100 nits)

12. (#3 1200 nits)

13.

14.

15.

16. (#3 1100 nits)

17.

18.

19.

20. (#3 1100)

21.

22.

23.

24.

25. (#3 1200 nits)

26.

27. (#3 1500 nits)

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

[saprano]

The bluray of Incredibles 2 is so bad in comparison to the UHD that I can even tell the difference on my phone.........


Before clicking on the caps.



There's so much detail on the characters and environment on the UHD. The highlights are well done too.

Studios continue to prove me right with these dual releases. Keep it up.

[andreasy969]

Galveston

As alreaedy mentioned by others and the review, this one is dark indeed (#7 is from the scene mentioned in the review) - I had to raise my HDR slider for that one at any rate. It was watchable though, but watching in a darkened room is a must imho. Other than being dark (which wasn't that much of an issue with me), it often looked black crushy to me and AFAICT there definitely is some black crush (I actually "measured" with #25 and you can see it in other places as well).

Having said that, the BD on the other hand often looks washed out to me in comparison, so I guess 'accurate' would be somewhere in between. Except for the AFAICT black crush, it's quite a nice upgrade imo.

Opposed to some spoilerish comments in the according thread, I also actually liked the movie and the ending in particular.

I included many 100 nits caps due to the dark image and the fact that the disc barely reaches 150 nits most of the time in the first place - kind of a Blade Runner 2049 situation.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/126758

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

Disclaimer as to why the UHD-BD images may appear to be too dim and please ignore any off-looking colors:

[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 (which is by design when the caps are done at 200 nits; on its own they should be viewed with monitor brightness set to 200 nits), 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:
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=589

1. (#3 100 nits)

2. (#3 100 nits)

3. (#3 100 nits)

4.

5. (#3 100 nits)

6.

7. (#3 100 nits)

8. (#3 100 nits)

9.

10. (#3 100 nits)

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22. (#3 100 nits)

23.

24.

25. (#3 100 nits)

26.

27.

28.

[StingingVelvet]

If those are pretty accurate to the HDR experience then it might be a rare case where I prefer the BD to the UHD, like 3:10 to Yuma. Lots of lost details (just look at that truck outside the trailer scene!) and unnatural darkness for a hotel room in the daytime and whatnot.

[Geoff D]

I can see exactly what andreas means though, the BD looks way too thin and grey in the blacks but the UHD goes much too far in the opposite direction and crushes the bejesus out of the blacks.

[StingingVelvet]

The BD definitely looks thin and grey, but to someone for whom that's not a pet peeve it looks a lot better than unnatural black crush everywhere. I dunno. Interested to watch it and not sure which version to pick.

[Geoff D]

Neither one floats my boat TBH

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

If those are pretty accurate to the HDR experience then it might be a rare case where I prefer the BD to the UHD, like 3:10 to Yuma. Lots of lost details (just look at that truck outside the trailer scene!) and unnatural darkness for a hotel room in the daytime and whatnot.

The 200 nits caps are too dark at any rate (depending on your monitor brightness) and the conversion may exaggerate the crush and the "too hot" look slightly, but I'm afraid it basically looks like that. The 100 nit caps should give you a better idea of the real APL though. Retrospectively it would've been better to do all the caps @100 ...

Anyway, I did notice the black crush when watching the disc right away and if that's one of your pet peeves, I'd stay away (I'm sure Geoff would hate it for example), since it's really bad. It's still not My-Girl-bad, but very noticable. After having watched the disc I instantly took a look at the BD caps in the review and thought that those look somewhat pale though. I thought the same when doing the comparison two weeks or so later.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I can see exactly what andreas means though, the BD looks way too thin and grey in the blacks but the UHD goes much too far in the opposite direction and crushes the bejesus out of the blacks.

Yes, I'm afraid it's pick your poison (EDIT: maybe not exactly poison with the BD, but I'd still have a hard time resorting to the BD here). Which is actually a pity - if it wasn't for the black crush, there'd be no contest (detail, intact noise etc.) and I didn't mind the dark image.


I actually wonder if this disc is the result of somewhat "forcing" HDR on a RLJ release, which maybe just should've been an SDR release. Their SDR releases didn't have such a problem.

[andreasy969]

The Meg

I won't be doing a ("normal") BD comparison of this one, because I've seen one done by someone else already, but I wanted to show the crazy HDR of this disc. I didn't watch the movie yet, don't want to spoil it for myself, basically just skipped through it and took some random caps. It looks like below throughout in basically every daytime scene, but affects other highlights as well.

As you can see, even 1000 nits often look rather shitty here imho (I didn't dare posting a 100 nits cap - 200 looks like crap already). You actually need a >= 4000 nits display to view this disc "properly" (it's a HDR 4000 disc, but I actually measured even above that). I can very well imagine OLED owners (with or without DV) being effed here, because the disc simply is f****** bright all the time.

I didn't watch the disc via player yet, but I think I will just (have to) go for the BD instead here anyway. In regard to the highlights, the BD basically looks like the highest nits caps do * (from what I've seen elsewhere - didn't look into the BD myself yet). * EDIT: No, it doesn't.

Whether this is "HDR g/done wrong", I'll leave up for debate.

BD, UHD@200, 1000, 3000 nits


BD, UHD@200, 1000, 3000 nits


BD, UHD@200, 1000, 3000, 4100 nits


BD, UHD@200, 1000, 2000 nits


BD, UHD@200, 2000, 3000, 4000 nits


BD, UHD@200, 1000, 2500 nits


BD, UHD@200, 1000, 1300 nits

[Geoff D]

Had to read that again before realising the caps on the left aren't the actual SDR disc, I know it didn't look that blown out when comparing it for myself

Could you do some of them anyway, bitte schön? I wanna see if my eyes and TV were correct in assessing that the UHD doesn't actually have an amazing amount of extended highlight information vs the BD, and what they've done is move whatever EDR information there is firmly into the upper reaches of the HDR signal and then boost the shit out of the brightness to compensate.

[edit] In any case, I can see those 4100 nit spectral details in cap #3 when comparing my DV playback to those caps, huzzah!

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Had to read that again before realising the caps on the left aren't the actual SDR disc, I know it didn't look that blown out when comparing it for myself

Yes, it's HDR @200 nits.

Could you do some of them anyway, bitte schön? I wanna see if my eyes and TV were correct in assessing that the UHD doesn't actually have an amazing amount of extended highlight information vs the BD, and what they've done is move whatever EDR information there is firmly into the upper reaches of the HDR signal and then boost the shit out of the brightness to compensate.

If you want to I will do so. (after having watched the movie ) EDIT: Yes, I can grab the according BD caps as well. But basically, AFAIK, it seems to be as you say.

But maybe this will suffice (?):
http://4kcompare.bplaced.net/comp.php?id=56

The guy is very competent as well. The UHD caps are @200 - I asked him (because I was shocked ).

[Geoff D]

I've looked at that site before but the caps take aaaaages to load, me likey the andreas way. But yes, y'all can see exactly what I mean about the SDR version, that it's already got a decent amount of range and the HDR version just kinda 'shifts it' into the upper ranges of the signal. I'm sure that 3000/4000 nit caps would show yet more HDR information in turn vs SDR, but not the vast amount of difference that a 3000/4000 nit master would usually show vs a 100 nit SDR pass, if that makes sense.

Either way the UHD is not an SDR friendly disc whatsoever and, judging from several comments in the main Meg thread, it's not a particularly HDR friendly disc either!

[StingingVelvet]

Saw Galveston at Walmart last night and couldn't resist looking at it myself. It helps that IMDB reviews call it a 70's style neo-noir. I think I drooled a little in the Walmart isle, reading that.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I've looked at that site before but the caps take aaaaages to load, me likey the andreas way. But yes, y'all can see exactly what I mean about the SDR version, that it's already got a decent amount of range and the HDR version just kinda 'shifts it' into the upper ranges of the signal. I'm sure that 3000/4000 nit caps would show yet more HDR information in turn vs SDR, but not the vast amount of difference that a 3000/4000 nit master would usually show vs a 100 nit SDR pass, if that makes sense.

Either way the UHD is not an SDR friendly disc whatsoever and, judging from several comments in the main Meg thread, it's not a particularly HDR friendly disc either!

I added the BD caps. And I would've lost that bet.

PS: I didn't read your "request" properly first because I was in a hurry ...

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Saw Galveston at Walmart last night and couldn't resist looking at it myself. It helps that IMDB reviews call it a 70's style neo-noir. I think I drooled a little in the Walmart isle, reading that.

You usually won't find me commenting on movies a lot and/but the movie is by no means a masterpiece, but I do like indie stuff, it was different, very much not-Hollywood and was a decent neo-noir movie imo (with its flaws of course).

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

I added the BD caps. And I would've lost that bet.

Thank you!! There we go then, it's exactly as I said. It's not like the 3000/4000 caps don't contain moar HDRs because they do, but when you need to resolve 2000 nits worth of HDR just to retain more or less the same highlight detail as the 100 nit version then you need some seriously good mapping to get anything like a decent image out of it, e.g.

BD



UHD @ 2000

[Deciazulado]

These are from ~100-2000nits (GeoffDTV™) in equal steps left to right, in various common monitor gammas (2.4/1886-2.0 including sRGB which is more like 2.1) top to bottom to account for viewer surround (dark to bright) and monitor set up. (Is your monitor calibrated to gammaX or sRGB? etc)






I would say those movies are done at ~ 100 150 350(2) & 500 average. As mentioned often discs seem to vary a "little"

Note: no tone mapping. Highlights above TV level - white
P3 space

[StingingVelvet]

I posted a lot in the Galveston thread but real quick: that UHD is completely borked IMO. Black crush to the point of it being unwatchable. There's no debate that the standard Blu is better in my mind. I did notice if you crank brightness some of that BD detail comes back on the UHD though, which is interesting. Maybe someone smarter than me can do something with that, but on "calibrated" settings the UHD is a coaster.

[Fendergopher]

One would imagine that either the Galveston UHD looked fine and not crushed on whatever mastering monitor they used, or that someone made the silly artistic choice to crush the blacks to get a certain "look" for it. I certainly can't recall seeing any other UHD with these kinds of blacks before.