Screenshot Comparisons 4K

[andreasy969]

An American Werewolf in London

Turbine 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 aka precision 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. the title is most likely not the same frame, because I couldn't be bothered.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13. (#3 437 nits)

14.

15.

16.

17.

18. (#3 423 nits)

19. (#3 466 nits)

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

[captainjoe]

Anyone else think that it looks like they're noise reducing it and then regraining it on the UHD of Werewolf?
For instance, shot 18 in the highlights of the fluorescent lights there's what looks like an artificial layer of grain overlayed on the image, it doesn't look natural

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by captainjoe

Anyone else think that it looks like they're noise reducing it and then regraining it on the UHD of Werewolf?
For instance, shot 18 in the highlights of the fluorescent lights there's what looks like an artificial layer of grain overlayed on the image, it doesn't look natural

You know that HDR shows up more grain in the highlights because it's exposing range that's not visible in the SDR, right?

[captainjoe]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You know that HDR shows up more grain in the highlights because it's exposing range that's not visible in the SDR, right?

Yes but something about the grain it’s exposing looks off.

Even here in the trees just above the greenery in the foreground doesn't it look like some of the underlying detail of the trees has been wiped away? Particularly in the darker parts of the image.
UHD


BLU

[Geoff D]

The problem to me looks like poor chroma compression, it's what's making the colour lose definition and even containment as it can 'bleed' outside the edges, making it look smeary and weird. But seeing it in motion will, as always, be the clincher and I've made my feelings perfickly clear about this sort of compression ****ery before, I'm very sensitive to it so we'll see how it goes.

[captainjoe]

Right that might be what’s throwing off the look of it to me then. Interested in hearing your thoughts if you get a chance to see it in motion

[Pyoko]

Originally Posted by captainjoe

Anyone else think that it looks like they're noise reducing it and then regraining it on the UHD of Werewolf?
For instance, shot 18 in the highlights of the fluorescent lights there's what looks like an artificial layer of grain overlayed on the image, it doesn't look natural

Kind of, yeah. Film shows grain even when maxed out (often accompanied by a discoloration of the highlights) however I agree that it doesn't look quite right here and not to what I'm used to.

This looks better but still has a similar appearance and shares many of the characteristics of the Turbine transfer of Crying Freeman which I complained a bunch about. Monochromatic and overly sharp/heavy/dark grain, smeared chroma with loss of subtle color variation resulting in ashy and ghoulish skintones, and a niggling feeling of noise-reduction/smearing under the heavy grain in parts.

Take the first shot for example, where did the yellow dye blobs from the film layers of the optical compositing of the titles go? Now replaced with a much sharper, heavier and more uniform layer of grain. There's no way that's the same grain, unless they scanned the clean source and added the title digitally, which seems unlikely for a third party. On the shot with the old lady she looks like a corpse compared to the BD thanks to the lack of color detail in the skin.

Maybe it looks fine while viewing, but I maintain that something isn't 100% kosher with these Turbine transfers, and to me they just look kind of ugly.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Pyoko

Kind of, yeah. Film shows grain even when maxed out (often accompanied by a discoloration of the highlights) however I agree that it doesn't look quite right here and not to what I'm used to.

This looks better but still has a similar appearance and shares many of the characteristics of the Turbine transfer of Crying Freeman which I complained a bunch about. Monochromatic and overly sharp/heavy/dark grain, smeared chroma with loss of subtle color variation resulting in ashy and ghoulish skintones, and a niggling feeling of noise-reduction/smearing under the heavy grain in parts.

Take the first shot for example, where did the yellow dye blobs from the film layers of the optical compositing of the titles go? Now replaced with a much sharper, heavier and more uniform layer of grain. There's no way that's the same grain, unless they scanned the clean source and added the title digitally, which seems unlikely for a third party. On the shot with the old lady she looks like a corpse compared to the BD thanks to the lack of color detail in the skin.

Maybe it looks fine while viewing, but I maintain that something isn't 100% kosher with these Turbine transfers, and to me they just look kind of ugly.

Re: the duped grain from the opticals, it's still clearly present on the two shot of the lads just before they head into the town (being a succession of dissolves) so no, I don't think it's been summarily removed and regrained with something else entirely.

You hit the nail on the head with the titles, good catch, they look like they've been digitally redone, and guess what? It's not the first John Landis film that Universal have done that to, because the UHD of Blues Brothers also has rebuilt credits in the opening scene. Yes, I say "Universal" because I don't believe that Turbine did this transfer themselves (did they say they had done?), not with another distributor in another country releasing their own UHD of this movie in a few months' time (L'atelier d'images in France).

There's still something ****y there with the chroma, no doubt, but someone did a cap of the chroma channels elsewhere and it just looked blocky AF rather than having that weird diagonal smearing seen on other turbine joints. But I look forward to you taking them apart so we can get a further look at the chroma channels, and if that other weird smearing is present then I will gladly stand corrected.

[andreasy969]

I can also totally see Pyoko finding the same smeared chroma with this one. And it looks oddly smooth to me at times as well (despite very fine grain, fake or not, being there). Take the scenes from #17 and #20 for ex. But when I compared both with the BD because of it, I really was just "Nevermind." - no way I'd pick the BD here instead (and going by my tiny Arrow comparison, I'm sure the same goes for that one). So there might be room for improvement, but for now it's still the best version available IMHO.

But with this one I will be paying attention should Arrow do one as well (with Crash I couldn't care less - I can see the comments with the Arrow already: pq yay, movie well...).

[andreasy969]

FYI: I added additional caps for the neon lights. Didn't bother with additional caps before, because there's not really that much more actual information there (except for the grain, again, fake or not, with the according settings).

On a personal note, I think the release is getting a little too much negative attention (as in more so than IMO more subpar releases are getting). I can follow the smeared chroma mind you. Sometimes I really think I shouldn't post caps ASAP and wait for impressions first instead.

[Pyoko]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You hit the nail on the head with the titles, good catch, they look like they've been digitally redone, and guess what? It's not the first John Landis film that Universal have done that to, because the UHD of Blues Brothers also has rebuilt credits in the opening scene. Yes, I say "Universal" because I don't believe that Turbine did this transfer themselves (did they say they had done?), not with another distributor in another country releasing their own UHD of this movie in a few months' time (L'atelier d'images in France).

You might be right about that, I assumed this was another Turbine project. One thing that leads me to believe the titles were not redone, is that the position matches the obviously optical version with regards to the warping of the film. If they were newly re-added on top of a fresher, clean OCN/IP scan I'd expect the positioning of the titles to be slightly off in relation to the background. I'd also expect a bigger difference in sharpness and detail.

[Geoff D]

It's just odd that they'd totally wipe the titles of grain then re-grain, but not do it the other opticals. Gee, I'd sure love to see this in motion someday. By the time I get mine Arrow will have announced their version

[andreasy969]

Mulan

As stated already, I'm quite happy with this. Clearer image, better colours/contrast (the BD often looks very pale in comparison - take Mushu with #16 or the scene from #20 for ex) and the HDR (while totally fake) adds a nice level af additional depth even without going overly bright (take #11, #28, #37). Vincent should be fine as well.

The BD is the one that came with the US 4K - didn't compare with my old US BD.

The 4K, as stated before, is slightly cropped.

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 aka precision 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. (#3 361 nits)

4. (#3 377 nits)

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13. the HDR (while totally fake) still removes the blurriness (#3 1608 nits)

14. brightest I did spot and there most likely is (#3 3083 nits)

15. (#3 2833 nits)

16.

17. (#3 2086 nits)

18. (#3 534 nits)

19.

20. the BD looks really pale here in comparison (next 3)

21.

22.

23.

24. halos with the reds still there, but I found it to be less intrusive on the 4K

25.

26.

27.

28. much clearer

29.

30. nice uptick in detail/blurry BD here (the background is the source AFAICT) (#3 667 nits)

31. offtopic, but this scene is still awesome IMO

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39. IMO less intrusive red halos again

40. and totally fake HDR once more (#3 2025 nits)

[Geoff D]

Thanks as always Andreas. Another CAPS movie in 'no extra dynamic range' shocker

[lonesam]

Are there any Wall-E 4k Screencaps anywhere available. Couldn`t find anything on the internet.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by lonesam

Are there any Wall-E 4k Screencaps anywhere available. Couldn`t find anything on the internet.

WALL·E

Ta-dah!

Typical Pixar pq upgrade. Major improvement being improved colours (whitish look being gone) and contrast. The BD also looks quite blurry at times (take #21 for one of the more prominent examples and maybe also don't miss the end credits). I did include some comments.

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 aka precision 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.

4.

5. blurry BD

6. (#3 321 nits)

7. blurry BD (#3 357 nits)

8. less blurry with the focused area as well (#3 321 nits)

9. rogue pixels on both (the laser dot) (and sharp now) [it's not only this frame]

10. (not that obvious via this cap, but the laser scene looks much nicer now contrast wise)

11.

12.

13. this one's there to show that the HDR doesn't do much/anything detail wise

14.

15. looks noticably better

16.

17.

18.

19. more detail (the ship)

20. more detail/blurry BD

21. utterly blurry BD

22.

23. much nicer

24. blurry WALL·E

25. while the HDR isn't doing much with the detail here (also in general I mean), much nicer as well anyway

26. this scene looks much nicer as well

27.

28.

29.

30. (#3 307 nits)

31. (#3 335 nits)

32.

33.

34. colour wise I won't argue about what's right, but the 4K looks better to me at any rate (also WALL·E is improved quite some here)

35. the improved (less "whitish") colours are apparent throughout once we're on the spaceship (and I won't mention all the time)

36.

37. crystal clear now (and better colours)

38.

39.

40. both the red pattern and the top of the robot much improved

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48. this part here is a prime example for looking much more pleasant now due to the "whitish" look being gone

49.

50. notice how the colour dots during the colour shift are much better resolved now

51.

52.

53.

54.

55. might not seem huge, but really looks much better in motion now (next two and the "red eye" from the next one in particular)

56.

57.

58. blurry texture on the BD

59.

60. much nicer due to whitish look being gone

61. blurry BD (upper left)

62. did I mention the whitish look of the BD yet?

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68. the 4K actually lost some detail in the bright area here (next two); just saying, because I noticed when I checked - 4K looks much nicer anyway (4K has 165 or sth nits here - it's not the caps)

69.

70.

71. crystal clear now (reds are always a safe bet)

72.

73. dat blurry BD again

74.

75. dat blurry and whitish BD again

76. whitish blah blah blah

77. even without there being much more actual detail, wide shots like this still look much sharper now (not sharpened mind you)

78. (#3 273 nits)

79.

80. much improved end credits (I'm inclined to use the word 'destroy' here)

[jjlikesonions]

andre, is there any chance you plan on doing the US Midsommar 4k release?

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by jjlikesonions

andre, is there any chance you plan on doing the US Midsommar 4k release?

It's not on my list, but what would you like me to compare it with? Another 4K or a BD? Grown historically/involuntarily, I have too many options by now (Italy, US and Japan) and don't want to compare them all. BD wise Italy or Japan would be an option, 4K wise the different cuts would be annoying.

[jjlikesonions]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

It's not on my list, but what would you like me to compare it with? Another 4K or a BD? Grown historically/involuntarily, I have too many options by now (Italy, US and Japan) and don't want to compare them all. BD wise Italy or Japan would be an option, 4K wise the different cuts would be annoying.

I'm most interested to see how much of an upgrade the US 4k is over the standard BD. Since the US 4k is the Director's Cut, I think the best BD comparison would be the UK BD from "Entertainment in Video" since it is also the Director's Cut. That's would be my personal preference

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by jjlikesonions

I'm most interested to see how much of an upgrade the US 4k is over the standard BD. Since the US 4k is the Director's Cut, I think the best BD comparison would be the UK BD from "Entertainment in Video" since it is also the Director's Cut. That's would be my personal preference

Could only compare it with the Italian or Japanese BD, but might pick one of these and do so then (and maybe also add a couple of caps from the other 4Ks). Can't say when, but will keep it in mind.