Screenshot Comparisons 4K

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

What, like Pan's Labyrinth?

Most of the time 2K means 2K.

You might really want to try it with certain Infinity War caps yourself. Downscale to 2K (not even 1080p) and upscale it again to 4K and compare. Actual high frequency detail will be completely gone for good (as in clearly visible and without any doubt).

[Geoff D]

Why would you downscale to 2K unless you were actually using 4K (4096x1716) caps? Surely you'd want to keep the scaling factor as precise as possible? Got any examples though, I can't be bothered to do it myself.

In any case I'm not denying that there isn't more detail, I've literally said that the spatial detail in the 4K disc of IW is much superior to the 1080p (to the point where I wondered myself if it actually had a 4K finish https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...w#post15925176) but I'm still not convinced that it's anything other than a lack of filtration on the UHD which is letting that detail through versus the actual 1080p BD equivalent. And I see just as much of a detail increase in the known 2K CG shots (of which there are literally thousands in these MCU films) than anything without CG.

[Klaustrofobia]

Originally Posted by lgans316

Glad that I passed on Thor. Will buy it when it drops under £10. No hurry. We are going to be even more pissed when the DV stream of these are going to end up looking better than the HDR10 UHD

There was a campaign here in Sweden last weekend where ALL Disney movies where on sale this included all Iron-man, Thor, cap and infinity war 4Ks for 99 sek (£8) and some other Marvel 4Ks for 149 sek (£12) I bought to many.

[Spartan21]

Thor 4K...looks bad. Why Disney? Idiots. It doesn't look like film anymore. Just a smoothed out mess, smh. I'm not upgrading until they stop using the DNR knob. Thanks for the pics Andreasy.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Why would you downscale to 2K unless you were actually using 4K (4096x1716) caps? Surely you'd want to keep the scaling factor as precise as possible? Got any examples though, I can't be bothered to do it myself.

Because that was the best/only option I had. And I don't consider it proof or sth, especially since I do see the/my scaling as a problem as well (and maybe my scaling just sucked). But I thought it possible to not just be 2K.

See the irony is that I doubted this being "real 4K" (TM) and therefore took a look and tried this. But when I did so, I failed to retain certain fine lines via my downscale/upscale method - they were completely lost.

But I also can't be bothered to do it again. I did try it with #3 from here back then if you want to give a try (not that I think so). Here several rather fine lines just disappeared for example.

Anyway, whatever it is, it is really very detailed 2K at least.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Because that was the best/only option I had. And I don't consider it proof or sth, especially since I do see the/my scaling as a problem as well (and maybe my scaling just sucked). But I thought it possible to not just be 2K.

See the irony is that I doubted this being "real 4K" (TM) and therefore took a look and tried this. But when I did so, I failed to retain certain fine lines via my downscale/upscale method - they were completely lost.

But I also can't be bothered to do it again. I did try it with #3 from here back then if you want to give a try (not that I think so). Here several rather fine lines just disappeared for example.

Anyway, whatever it is, it is really very detailed 2K at least.

No worries, 'there are many ways to skin a cat' as the saying goes (not sure if there's a comparable German phrase, but you get the idea). Pyoko's right that timelines most certainly contain footage of varying resolutions depending on what they were shot on, and a fellow br.com member who's actually a film student (Spike M) said the same thing, that he shot something like 5K RED for a project and had access to those files all the way through the process. Then the penny dropped: I aksed him what resolution the actual final master was output to and he said it was 1080p.

The difference is that a timeline is not the same thing as the final digital source master that's been output with all the relevant creative decisions baked in, including any reframing or flopping or other digital manipulation of the content like split-screening different takes together. Fincher's Gone Girl is a great example, shot at 6K and having a 6K DI but the final output digital source master (DSM) inclusive of all of Fincher's meticulous reframing etc was a centre crop at 5K and was intended to be the gold standard that any future masters were to be derived from. I know it's still got a bigger resolution than 4K but that's not my point here, my point is that the 6K data as worked on doesn't represent the finished DSM of the movie itself, into which all the creative input has been poured and is now the 'reference' for the film.

With Spike's student film he said that he saved all that information as a Resolve project (other editing/grading solutions are available) so if he wanted to he could absolutely pull a new 4K master from the source files by reloading the relevant pieces of "digital OCN" and then re-running the respective project metadata, albeit with tweaks to actually output it as 4K as well as QC to make sure it matches the original version. But while a student filmmaker could do this on their own time with provided equipment it's a lot more expensive for a studio to do it with post-production vendors who certainly won't do it for free: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=662

Sure, there's definitely the chance that for newly-produced movies they're simultanously producing 4K UHD masters on the quiet whilst outputting the bog-standard 2K for theatrical usage, and this could certainly apply to Infinity War as it could for any number of films - it'd just be nice if they actually SAID this is what they were doing as it'd save an awful lot of hand-wringing from the "2K upscale is snake oil" crowd. There's also the "2K plus" approach e.g. Jurassic World was finished out to 2.4K, or the "2K anamorphic" approach like on Last Jedi where everything was output to a squeezed 2048x1716 (thus aping the 2x anamorphic capture of the 35mm stuff) and although not full-rez 4K is still double the pixels of a flat 2K (2048x858) 'scope movie. It just needs a doubling in the horizontal to become a desqueezed 4K 4096x1716 master. Personally I think the latter has happened more often than we might think.

But for older stuff finished out to 2K then there's little chance of all the files/camera negative being pulled and the whole thing rebuilt, there have been exceptions as we know (The Martian from Fox, several Sony movies) but in the main if a catalogue movie was done at 2K then at 2K it will stay.

[imhh1]

Shaft 2019 UHD-BD vs 1080pBD
https://slowpics.org/comparison/53b1...d-a44c78414067


Shaft 2019 UHD-BD vs UHD WEB
https://slowpics.org/comparison/439a...5-2963c85514c5


Christopher Robin 2018 UHD WEB vs 1080pBD
https://slowpics.org/comparison/0b56...6-a7e670446665


iT 2017 Dolby Vision vs HDR10
https://slowpics.org/comparison/7479...c-34616b51d953

*Calibrated OLED, Pure Black Room, Same camera settings, Tripod, Bluetooth triggering.



madVR settings:

[Show spoiler]

1

[andreasy969]

Guardians of the Galaxy

I'm actually quite pleased that I have only nice things to say (or show) about a MCU release for a change. The fact that it happens to be my favourite one is even better.

This really looks so much better than the BD - colour, contrast, detail and, above all, depth. You'll find that this won't win any award for highlight recovery (certain parts will remain white and there are better examples for this than my caps will show), but it does increase the depth significantly nevertheless. The BD looks really flat and dull in comparison.

#7, #10, #11 and #13 are there to show that this looks waxy at times, but when it does, it does so on the BD already - I for one don't see any additional DNR here. Guess I have to be glad that this was shot digitally.

I can't confirm any banding from 3:10 - 3:30. (it was stated in the thread - there are no according caps)

I did add some comments. The additional caps, most of the time, won't need any.

BD (upscaled) | UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 nits)

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

[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 colour bit depth has been compressed as well). The UHD-BD shots are therefore not an accurate representation of the original HDR image - dynamic range, colours (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. more detail (headphone)

2. increased depth

3. increased depth once more

4.

5. detail

6. even more detail

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15. looks much better

16. more detail with cgi shots (next two)

17.

18. this hud scene looks way better (which is why there are 3 caps)

19.

20.

21.

22. looks much better

23. this whole daytime scene (#23 - #31) looks plain ugly on the BD in comparison - it's utterly flat and dull; I couldn't stop taking caps of this scene - reminded me of Winter Soldier's highway chase scene

24.

25. more detailed as well

26.

27. (#3 529 nits) there's also some nice HDR in this scene

28.

29.

30. and more detail to be found here again

31. (#3 552 nits) and the last one from this scene with rather obvious improvements as well

32. dark scenes look flat as well in comparison

33. Rocket being improved

34. (#3 100 nits) I did add a 100 nits cap with this one to address "too dark" in general

35.

36.

37. the red laser in particular looks much better here

38. (#3 507 nits) iconic shot looking way better with nice HDR

39. (#3 552 nits)

40. (#3 461 nits)

41.

42. (#3 428 nits)

43. (# 466 nits) requires a comment despite the additional cap, because it looks much better detail wise as well

44. (#3 496 nits)

45. (#3 353 nits)

46. (#3 314 nits)

47. (#3 486 nits) very nice

48. (#3 461 nits)

49. (#3 534 nits)

50. (#3 529 nits) other than the HDR, don't miss the detail increase

51. (#3 741) there's plenty of more lovely spacecraft stuff like this, but I have to stop somewhere

52. (#3 432 nits)

53.

54. other than the improved depth, nice detail improvement as well

55.

56. (#3 377 nits)

57. (#3 357 nits)

58. (#3 476 nits) don't miss that one!

59. this whole scene (#59 - #63) looks particularly dull in comparison as well, but then again, so basically does the whole movie

60. (#3 361 nits)

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66. more detail/BD surprisingly fuzzy

[birdztudio]

I’m still amazed why this thread won’t become sticky on the top section, why and why...

[andjar01]

This is great news ! The only marvel title i care about is clearly improved on UHD!

[Hardback247]

Originally Posted by imhh1

Christopher Robin 2018 UHD WEB vs 1080pBD
https://slow.pics/comparison/0b56d67...6-a7e670446665

Where did you find the UHD version?

[avs commenter]

Dis+

[Hardback247]

Originally Posted by avs commenter

Dis+

I know that Disney+ is out in the Netherlands, but the list of movies for the November 12th launch doesn't include Christopher Robin. As of now, it's still on Netflix in my country.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Hardback247

Where did you find the UHD version?

Be careful though. I don't know where those 1080p caps are supposed to be coming from, but they have nothing to do with the actual BD encode at any rate. I was sceptical with the first extremely blurry Pooh cap already (#2), the extremely poor compression on some of the other caps made me look into the BD (it's still a Disney BD after all).

Below are the ones that I took a look at, because I just couldn't believe it (with #2 - #5 that is) and I was right. I guess the same applies to the rest - didn't look any further.

1080p (from whatever source) | UHD Web | actual BD

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

[andreasy969]

Doctor Strange

Other than the additional caps, you might want to take a look at #1, #12, #13 and #32.

There is some additional DNR going on here (one can see it pretty good on #19 and #38), but the BD looks waxy already (so I for one don't really care with this one). I did include several waxy faces.

Since one cannot say it often enough: You'll most likely have to push your monitor brightness re. "too dim" to view these properly in SDR gamma.

BD (upscaled) | UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 nits) (still using the latest alpha)

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

[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 colour bit depth has been compressed as well). The UHD-BD shots are therefore not an accurate representation of the original HDR image - dynamic range, colours (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. (#3 518 nits)

4. (#3 674 nits)

5. (#3 725 nits)

6.

7.

8.

9. (#3 393 nits)

10. (# 696 nits)

11. (#3 806 nits)

12.

13.

14. (#3 765 nits)

15. (#3 710 nits)

16.

17. (#3 1069 nits)

18.

19.

20. (#3 710 nits)

21. (#3 923 nits)

22.

23.

24. (#3 626 nits)

25. (#3 733 nits)

26. (#3 563 nits)

27. (#3 733 nits)

28. (#3 588 nits)

29.

30. (#3 667 nits)

31. (#3 696 nits)

32.

33.

34. (#3 733 nits)

35. (#3 757 nits)

36. (#3 757 nits)

37. *#3 600 nits)

38.

39. (#3 749 nits)

40. (#3 703 nits)

[Spartan21]

I just bought the 4K UHD for DS, and it looks like a good upgrade.

[Jeyl]

Why is everything always darker?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Jeyl

Why is everything always darker?

Click on the spoiler next to where it says Disclaimer as to why the UHD-BD images may appear to be too dim and please ignore any off-looking colours: in Andreas' post and all shall be revealed.

[Jeyl]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Click on the spoiler next to where it says Disclaimer as to why the UHD-BD images may appear to be too dim and please ignore any off-looking colours: in Andreas' post and all shall be revealed.

That's not really what I'm seeing on my set-up. It's as dark on my screen as it is on these screencaps. Watched the 4K of ALIEN the other night a shot of Ash's face, which I could see clearly in every previous release is now dunked in shadows. These UHDs are too darn dark. How am I supposed to see more detail if they make everything dark?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Jeyl

That's not really what I'm seeing on my set-up. It's as dark on my screen as it is on these screencaps. Watched the 4K of ALIEN the other night a shot of Ash's face, which I could see clearly in every previous release is now dunked in shadows. These UHDs are too darn dark. How am I supposed to see more detail if they make everything dark?

These SDR converted screencaps are heavily compressed in terms of range and brightness which is killing the relative brightness level. If everything you're actually watching in HDR is as dark as these SDR converted caps then you've got a problem with your setup, your TV, or both.