Screenshot Comparisons 4K

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

I'd still pick '84 over Scorpion quality wise (going by caps re. the latter) and now I pick the 4K over the '84. (And I see colour discussions incoming already.)

I havent done a comparison in motion, but based on only these caps, for me its a toss up between the Scorpion and the 4K, with the '84 being the clear loser in color grading. I bet HDR would look real nice on this movie.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Ruined

I havent done a comparison in motion, but based on only these caps, for me its a toss up between the Scorpion and the 4K, with the '84 being the clear loser in color grading. I bet HDR would look real nice on this movie.

The Scorpion is the clear loser grain wise at any rate. Just look at the last ones. And it was the same when I compared with other Scorpion caps posted by someone else in the US Opera BD thread back then. The '84 being the clear loser in colour grading wasn't as clear then either. I avoid colour discussions anyway, because people are full of shit (and US biased here) when it comes to the colour. Calling it a toss between Scorpion and 4K with '84 being the clear loser when the Scorpion is often the outlier re. both will seem a little odd to me at any rate.

I didn't compare the '84 properly with the 4K yet (my comparison is not properly, it's using only caps' caps instead of actually comparing myself), but I've been told that there are quite some differences at times, with '84 funnily enough being the preferred one.

With the grain/texture there isn't much to discuss though.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

The Scorpion is the clear loser grain wise at any rate. Just look at the last ones. And it was the same when I compared with other Scorpion caps posted by someone else in the US Opera BD thread back then. The '84 being the clear loser in colour grading wasn't as clear then either. I avoid colour discussions anyway, because people are full of shit (and US biased here) when it comes to the colour. Calling it a toss between Scorpion and 4K with '84 being the clear loser when the Scorpion is often the outlier re. both will seem a little odd to me at any rate.

I didn't compare the '84 properly with the 4K yet (my comparison is not properly, it's using only caps' caps instead of actually comparing myself), but I've been told that there are quite some differences at times, with '84 funnily enough being the preferred one.

With the grain/texture there isn't much to discuss though.

Yeh the grain on the Scorpion isnt as well rendered, but the massive color difference is going to be far more noticable than the grain difference IMO - and the 84 color just looks off or less than ideal in most of those caps.

So probably i'd say (again without seeing in motion)
4K > Scorpion > 84

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Yeh the grain on the Scorpion isnt as well rendered, but the massive color difference is going to be far more noticable than the grain difference IMO - and the 84 color just looks off or less than ideal in most of those caps.

So probably i'd say (again without seeing in motion)
4K > Scorpion > 84

From my POV: The '84 looked (and still does) very nice. The different grading (if very similar, as is the case here IMHO) I mostly notice in comparison (as I think most do). Different texture/grain I notice always. Which is why I'm sure I'd pick the '84 over the Scorpion.

But prefer whatever you want really. I'll pick the 4K now even without comparing the colours properly, because it looked better to my eyes in general when I took a look. What tends to always bug me though, are claims about this or that one being correct. If I learned anything over the years, it's that there's no such thing, unless obviously completely off, which I don't see with any disc here though - only based on caps re. the Scorpion.

If one assumes the 4K is correct, going by #5, the Scorpion has to be completely off, if one assumes the Scorpion is correct, going by #4 or #8 the 4K has to be completely off. My point being: Meh - I just watch and enjoy what looks best to my eyes here in general without directly comparing colours...

[andreasy969]

Avatar: The Way of Water

Just took some samples when taking a look at both discs. BD vs. UHD-BD wise it's basically Alita (which I thought/think was a very nice refinement).

https://slow.pics/c/q38oXu1N

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.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

[andreasy969]

Animal House (Universal vs. Plaion)

Just did a mini one to confirm what I just thought - the Plaion is a tad crisper.

So Plaion == burp audio (both English 2.0 tracks come with the burp btw. - that's the only thing I checked with the additional track though) and a tad better pq.

https://slow.pics/c/CMFanUs8

[andreasy969]

Black Phone (Universal BD vs. Universal 4K vs. Turbine 4K)

I'll try to make it short. The Universal 4K is a very solid upgrade over the Universal BD despite the Universal 4K being SDR-in-HDR-container. If you switch from the BD to the 4K you'll find a major pq upgrade - better blacks, better colours (washed out look of the BD being gone) and more detail. I am sure the Universal 4K is a proper representation of the approved DV master. If the 4K looks too dark for you, you're either not watching in a dark room or your setup is having problems properly tone mapping such a <100 nits 4K disc.

The Turbine is clearly boosted brightness on top of the very same underlying HDR master, which just happens to be SDR, which most likely happens to be the intendend look. While I see a proper pq upgrade with the Universal 4K, I see boosted colours (red faces for example), extremely boosted hightlights introducing artifacts (don't miss #19) with zero actual highlight detail increase, an inconsistent look and it just doesn't look right to me. Other than the weird highlights I also found similar green pushs (most likely also the result of the boosting; #37 is a good example) elsewhere. Mind you that I've seem much worse when it comes to fake HDR, but I'd pick the SDR-in-HDR-container Universal release over the Turbine any day.

The SDR-in-HDR-container Universal sometimes even looks more "dynamic" to me than the boosted Turbine (see #13 or the flat #54).

YMMV, I'm also not condemning the Turbine and pick whatever you prefer. I'd also like to point out that I am not trying to make the Turbine look bad. If I wanted to, I would've started with the Turbine and would've had an easy time doing so by posting only highlight caps.

The #4s are always the Turbine mapped to the respective max. When the Turbine max is <= 100 nits, #4 is the exact same 100 nits cap as #3 (hence the brackets in this case).

#53 is the totally wrong BD frame, but I didn't bother replacing it, since it doesn't matter - difference is clearly there anyway and there are more than enough matching examples...

EDIT: One more thing... The Universal 4K caps, except for precision and maybe gamut, should be pretty much it - the Universal is always <100 nits. With the Turbine I went for 100 as well, so one can compare the blacks and the APL, but the 100 nits Turbine caps most of the time are disclaimer material!

1-14
https://slow.pics/c/Dwsi9iyA
15-28
https://slow.pics/c/r2AZNqTG
29-42
https://slow.pics/c/kimXrkfA
43-56
https://slow.pics/c/aC5OI9WR
57-64
https://slow.pics/c/2F9Px2yz

Universal BD | Universal 4K (100 nits) | Turbine 4K (100 nits) | Turbine 4K respective max or same as #3

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. #4 169 nits

2. #4 125 nits

3. #4 142 nits

4. #4 195 nits

5. (#4 85 nits)

6. #4 197 nits

7. #4 461 nits

8. #4 150 nits

9. #4 204 nits

10. #4 189 nits

11. (#4 52 nits)

12. #4 264 nits

13. #4 140 nits

14. (#4 22 nits)

15. (#4 8 nits)

16. #4 124 nits

17. #4 128 nits

18. #4 496 nits

19. #4 540 nits

20. #4 502 nits

21. #4 534 nits

22. #4 558 nits

23. #4 529 nits

24. #4 546 nits

25. #4 529 nits

26. #4 259 nits

27. (#4 93 nits)

28. (#4 102 nits)

29. #4 349 nits

30. #4 331 nits

31. #4 304 nits

32. #4 304 nits

33. #4 127 nits

34. #4 183 nits

35. #4 191 nits

36. #4 177 nits

37. #4 240 nits

38. #4 552 nits

39. #4 534 nits

40. #4 540 nits

41. #4 620 nits

42. #4 131 nits

43. #4 342 nits

44. #4 557 nits

45. #4 496 nits

46. (#4 97 nits)

47. #4 220 nits

48. #4 225 nits

49. (#4 86 nits)

50. #4 220 nits

51. #4 204 nits

52. #4 210 nits

53. #4 164 nits

54. (#4 76 nits)

55. #4 242 nits

56. (#4 23 nits)

57. #4 227 nits

58. (#4 33 nits)

59. (#4 46 nits)

60. #4 114 nits

61. #4 153 nits

62. (#4 89 nits)

63. #4 569 nits

64. #4 273 nits

[andreasy969]

In The Heat Of The Night (Kino vs. Wicked)

Just for the record: I started with the Kino picking plenty of stuff where I thought HDR might/should come with improvements due to the SDR either looking a little garish to my eyes (the reason for many white shirt collar caps actually) or in regard to highlights. The underlying master, which we knew already, is the same - white specks, a sometimes soft frame before a cut, print damage, soft shots and all.

So when comparing with the Wicked Vision, I actually did find I was expecting sometimes (or even rarely if you want). But also nothing that blew my mind. Highlights wise the best I found was #9 and #40 really - maybe also #14, #33 or #52 if you want. Re. garish I also found some minor improvements with #21 or #43 for example. But clipped, most of the time, simply remained clipped. And there's often also a catch re. the Wicked resolving a little more: I found plenty examples where I think the SDR Kino actually "hides" stuff that isn't really meant to be seen and therefore looks more natural, with the Wicked on the other hand sometimes even showing what I consider (sometimes borderline) artifacts. Examples for this are #16 (the lamp) and #20 (lamp again and in this case Kino clearly looking better). More examples would be. #19 (white collar with pink pixels), #32 (the hot spot with the welding in the background), #35 (wrench with blue pixels), #38 (wheelbarrow) and #48/#49 (bumper).

Speaking of the bumber: While I am often surprised where the brightest highlights are anyway, I couldn't help but question while a bumper reflecting the sun at daylight is clocking in at not even 300 nits while highlights in scenes in darker environments register at the same level or even markedly brighter. Yeah, I'm a critical ******* that tends to question everything I'm afraid.

#44 is an example where the Wicked both looks less garish (the white statue in general), but the white highlight on said statue is at the same time also looking somewhat strange/out of place to me (you'll see what I mean with the max one).

The clipped white gloves of #46 remain just as clipped on the Wicked. I think you'll get the idea by now.

So I for one can totally see why the Kino release is SDR. I won't claim that the Wicked is simply boosting a SDR master, but I think that the master simply wasn't created with HDR in mind - i.e. there isn't really much more there than what SDR can represent. And/but I think the Wicked squeezes the last bit out of what's there. I think most will prefer the look of the Wicked over the Kino, because most will simply prefer higher contrast and a little more punch and more pronounced highlights. IMO one can't go wrong with either release - I'll keep both and both are worth owning in my book.

Black levels are basically the same. I found the grain on the Wicked to be a tad more crisp and also more colourful.

Now for pixel peeping: I have no issues with the compression of either disc in motion, only on caps I noticed more issues on the Wicked (mind you that I didn't spend a lot of time pixel peeping in the first place) - having said that, I think HDR compression is also harder, so a comparison might not be fair. Namely, you'll find a blocky line at the top of the Wicked more than once (I find this sometimes - even with FiM IIRC - and always wonder what causes this btw.), some rather minor chroma issues (i.e. "rainbows") and some weird brown spots more than once (see #6 and #19 for example - if you don't find them: nevermind). The Wicked is MEL, so that's what you'll get compression wise, i.e. there's no FEL to improve anything. And again: Both look perfectly fine to me in motion.

I went with 100 nits for the Wicked - which isn't ideal (there's a reason I usually use 200), but does the job here - to compare the two black level and APL wise, but added respective max ones for the Wicked, so one can also see/check what got lost with 100 nits ones.

I can't tell you which one you should buy (mabybe both), but maybe it helps you to decide.

1-15
https://slow.pics/c/UXGeLTpg
16-30
https://slow.pics/c/SpR5fvAo
31-45
https://slow.pics/c/DrD2Z5Nd
45-63
https://slow.pics/c/ZHu1nR8X

Kino | Wicked (madVR/SDR/100nits) | Wicked (madVR/SDR/max 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. (#3 158 nits)

2. (#3 264 nits)

3. (#3 122 nits)

4. (#3 259 nits)

5. (#3 294 nits)

6. (#3 594 nits)

7. (#3 311 nits)

8. (#3 529 nits)

9. (#3 466 nits)

10. (#3 108 nits)

11. (#3 432 nits)

12. (#3 451 nits)

13. (#3 419 nits)

14. (#3 451 nits)

15. (#3 307 nits)

16. (#3 342 nits)

17. (#3 563 nits)

18. (#3 558 nits)

19. (#3 210 nits)

20. (#3 393 nits)

21. (#3 446 nits)

22. (#3 446 nits)

23. (#3 512 nits)

24. (#3 311 nits)

25. (#3 230 nits)

26. (#3 373 nits)

27. (#3 298 nits)

28. (#3 270 nits)

29. (#3 346 nits)

30. (#3 582 nits)

31. (#3 373 nits)

32. (#3 385 nits)

33. (#3 389 nits)

34. (#3 304 nits)

35. (#3 349 nits)

36. (#3 324 nits)

37. (#3 563 nits)

38. (#3 353 nits)

39. (#3 291 nits)

40. (#3 328 nits)

41. (#3 294 nits)

42. (#3 304 nits)

43. (#3 381 nits)

44. (#3 451 nits)

45. (#3 594 nits)

46. (#3 432 nits)

47. (#3 294 nits)

48. (#3 294 nits)

49. (#3 282 nits)

50. (#3 285 nits)

51. (#3 338 nits)

52. (#3 365 nits)

53. (#3 369 nits)

54. (#3 301 nits)

55. (#3 335 nits)

56. (#3 317 nits)

57. (#3 328 nits)

58. (#3 401 nits)

59. (#3 346 nits)

60. (#3 389 nits)

61. (#3 307 nits)

62. (#3 230 nits)

63. (#3 253 nits)

[andreasy969]

Ronin (Kino vs. Capelight)

I don't have the time to compare properly right now, but I wanted to still get a small Ronin comparison up this week. Also because I won't be able to for a week or so. Mind you that these are rather random (and not up to my own standards if you want).

Even without/before comparing directly, I'd pick the Capelight - it looks a tad crisper to me and consistently so throughout and the caps only confirmed that. But the Capelight isn't without fault either and its Achilles' heel is called chroma. Capelight at times actually got lucky that I started with the Kino in that regard (with #13 in particular - there are worse frames than this one and it was noticable to me in motion here).

No thumbs, because, again, not much time. (I think people prefer slowpics anyway, but a visual index is nice IMO)

https://slow.pics/c/BhVU0cEK

[barrett75]

thanks Andreas. From caps Capelight has the edge encoding wise (except some sporadic chroma issues as you pointed out), especially on bright areas. but kino has a huge 19mbps EL layer that could match german release for those who have DV capabilities. if german is LSP i believe it has only RPU metadata. i have kino but capelight is on its way too.

[Geoff D]

Yikes. I must be looking at a different set of caps than y'all because the Capelight's chroma compression is shocking IMO, it's so blotchy and nasty in cap after cap. The Kino is a tad softer, yessir, but it's a hell of a lot tidier with it and I'll take that because dodgy chroma compression is something that reallllllly annoys me.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by barrett75

thanks Andreas. From caps Capelight has the edge encoding wise (except some sporadic chroma issues as you pointed out), especially on bright areas. but kino has a huge 19mbps EL layer that could match german release for those who have DV capabilities. if german is LSP i believe it has only RPU metadata. i have kino but capelight is on its way too.

Yes, but I can't check the DV with the Kino, didn't even have the time to check with the Capelight, and to me only HDR10 matters anyway. And I also doubt the Kino catching up with DV. Maybe caps or someone else will do DV ones one day. Not sure if nicwood compared with DV, but his impression basically matched mine except for the chroma.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yikes. I must be looking at a different set of caps than y'all because the Capelight's chroma compression is shocking IMO, it's so blotchy and nasty in cap after cap. The Kino is a tad softer, yessir, but it's a hell of a lot tidier with it and I'll take that because dodgy chroma compression is something that reallllllly annoys me.

Yes you, but I think you're almost the only person complaining about this level of chroma (without caps). I saw it with the caps right away, in motion when taking the brief look only with #13. Even nicwood, whom I consider to be more picky than myself, didn't even mention IIRC. So you might not be the best reference for the general public and I'm not talking about the "blind" people. And don't get me wrong, for you the Kino might be the better option indeed. But I guess you'd have to compare for yourself, because (at least in HDR10) the Capelight bests the Kino otherwise. The Kino isn't only softer it often also simply has no grain at all and you don't like that either. When I looked at the Kino before I also thought it looked a tad digital, sometimes on the edge of falling apart. Again in HDR10.

Having said that, I think both discs are very watchable anyway. Neither is "perfect". Pity Arrow doesn't seem to have the rights anymore I guess.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Yes, but I can't check the DV with the Kino, didn't even have the time to check with the Capelight, and to me only HDR10 matters anyway. And I also doubt the Kino catching up with DV. Maybe caps or someone else will do DV ones one day. Not sure if nicwood compared with DV, but his impression basically matched mine except for the chroma.



Yes you, but I think you're almost the only person complaining about this level of chroma (without caps). I saw it with the caps right away, in motion when taking the brief look only with #13. Even nicwood, whom I consider to be more picky than myself, didn't even mention IIRC. So you might not be the best reference for the general public and I'm not talking about the "blind" people. And don't get me wrong, for you the Kino might be the better option indeed. But I guess you'd have to compare for yourself, because (at least in HDR10) the Capelight bests the Kino otherwise. The Kino isn't only softer it often also simply has no grain at all and you don't like that either. When I looked at the Kino before I also thought it looked a tad digital, sometimes on the edge of falling apart. Again in HDR10.

Having said that, I think both discs are very watchable anyway. Neither is "perfect". Pity Arrow doesn't seem to have the rights anymore I guess.

So, I think you're not the best proxy for assessing compression because you see too little, but you think I'm not the best proxy for assessing compression because I see too much.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

So, I think you're not the best proxy for assessing compression because you see too little, but you think I'm not the best proxy for assessing compression because I see too much.

Basically yes I guess.

[StingingVelvet]

I don't usually see chroma stuff but I actually see it here since Geoffy made me look for it. Look at Skarsgaard's forehead in cap 8, the capelight adds some nice grain but that grain is packed with chroma noise. Not sure which I'd prefer honestly but I already have the Kino so .

[asacmurr]

Zodiac Blu vs 4K stream caps, not tonemapped. If anyone can teach me how to tonemap these I'd appreciate it

[Hedrox]

Originally Posted by asacmurr

Zodiac Blu vs 4K stream caps, not tonemapped. If anyone can teach me how to tonemap these I'd appreciate it

Probably done without Fincher's involvement, just a basic upscale with a cheap HDR pass. The geometry, detail, even the grain patterns are identical.

[asacmurr]

Originally Posted by Hedrox

Probably done without Fincher's involvement, just a basic upscale with a cheap HDR pass. The geometry, detail, even the grain patterns are identical.

Maybe for the better if Se7en is as bad as it sounds

[nissling]

Originally Posted by asacmurr

If anyone can teach me how to tonemap these I'd appreciate it

I prefer tone mapping in Davinci Resolve (which is free). Add your screenshots on a timeline, create a node in the color tab with the Color Management effect and choose your settings. Input color space should be BT.2100 and gamma ST.2084 (either with no brightness cap or 4000, 1000, 800 etc nits, try around and see what you like). Output color space is BT.709 and Gamma 2.4.

You can also use ACES which has a stronger roll off both in highlights and shadows but can sometimes look better for darker films. Basically try around and see what fits.

Then you can just create screenshots directly in Resolve and export (right click on the color viewer and select "Grab all stills - From first/middle frame" and then export them from the gallery. Keep in mind tho that the resolution of the screenshots will be that of the timeline, so set it to 3840x2160 in the project settings.

EDIT: I did analyze the old Blu-Ray of Zodiac just last week. It had very, very few instances of heavy clipping. Subjectively speaking I'm not a big fan of the green tint in some scenes but it looks really solid to this day. A lazy SDR to HDR conversion is not really that impressive by comparison so I'll keep the Blu-Ray for now.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by Hedrox

The geometry, detail, even the grain patterns are identical.

The geometry in The Social Network is also mostly the same.
Details? The Social Network also looks basically identical as the BD.
The grain patterns? Why would they differ? It's a 2K DI of mostly digitally shot movie.