Screenshot Comparisons 4K

[James Freeman]

Thanks for The Martian pics, as expected.

The BD (rec.709) is more color saturated even though both are in 709, and also has more light detail.
The UHD Player simply clips the HDR (higher than 100 nit for example) and adjusts the resulting gamma to look the same.
Yes, the player just discards (clips) the bright areas if the Player receives an EDID signal that the TV is non-HDR or non HDMI 2.0a.
The BD version is simply mastered that all the lights are visible even if they are not as bright.

That is very predictable, because the UHD don't use a Gamma curve for its EOTF, it uses ST.2084 curve.
The player HAS to do some conversion from ST.2084 to Gamma curve so that the non HDMI 2.0a TV will be able to show that.

As for if the Samsung player clips anything outside the 709 color space, we need a more colorful sample.
@scorpiontail60 if you could please post some comparison screenshots of very colorful movie like Smurfs or Lego to see what the Player does with color.

[amoergosum]

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

The same thing seems to apply to scripted television shows, like The Blacklist. I think The Blacklist from Sony's FMP-X10 4K digital distribution service has more detail than any of the UHD Blu-rays I've watched thus far. Because TV shows are again shot for television screens and they are not held back by Hollywood standards of finishing CGI at 2K resolution and only being designed to accommodate 2K digital cinema packages. TV shows could shine on the UHD Blu-ray format better than all of these upscaled 2K masters... look at the quality of stuff streaming in 4K on Netflix, like Better Call Saul Season 2:



Who the heck is watching those crappy AMC TV broadcasts packed with commercials and channel logos on cable using 1080i MPEG-2 when they could be watching these 4K versions on Netflix?

I think this is why Internet distribution is going to be a considerable thread to this format. Nothing I've seen so far on this format has really blown me away and made me think "this looks so much better than the 4K streams I've been watching on Netflix and the TV shows I got from Sony's 4K player", even with HDR. This is completely unlike the Blu-ray format which always looked so much better than all 1080p Internet and television broadcast sources.

Wow...the Better Call Saul 4K Netflix screenshots look FANTASTIC.

[Mavrick]

I'm only going to say it once. Discussion on how to circumvent copy protection is not allowed on this site. I've told some of you more than once in other threads. It's clearly written in the forum rules, so any further discussion will result in a suspension, there have been enough warnings already.

[Mavrick]

As of right now it falls under the following rule

It is strictly prohibited to discuss websites, techniques, software and any and all methods that can be used to duplicate, acquire or otherwise access copyrighted and copy protected material except via approved methods by the copyright holders (Blu-ray, DVD, iTunes, digital on-disc copies etc). This includes any and all all variations of disc copying software, torrents and any and all technologies that are available or may become available in the future for these purposes. This also includes any other form of illegal or unethical behaviour for example the unauthorised reproduction of copyright material and trademarks. Any breach deemed serious enough will be forwarded to the relevant authorities.

If it was perfectly legal to get the shots then every review site would be using them. Until the legality is clarified then the enforcement of the above rule will remain.

[amoergosum]

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

It really is quite embarrassing how outdated Hollywood's production process for movies is, how they ruin their movies like this, by mastering them at 2K.

How much does it cost to master a movie at 2K?
How much does it cost to master a movie at 4K?

Does anyone know?

[pawel86ck]

Navrick@ why film studios cant provide blu-ray.com at least 5-10 legal screenshots? Movie review without screenshot is not the same

Anyway, these real UHD screenshots (even after HDR-SDR conversion) convinced me, I like what I'm seeing, no compression problems unlike HDTV 4K materials, and great colors.

Bluray


UHD


It looks like compossite signal vs RGB comparison to me. Colors on blurays dosnt look well saturated at all on my SDR monitor, and I cant imagine how well UHD with HDR and bt2020 will look on HDR HDTV.

[James Freeman]

Originally Posted by amoergosum

How much does it cost to master a movie at 2K?
How much does it cost to master a movie at 4K?

Does anyone know?

Roughly, 1.5 to 2 as much for conversion to DCP Master after the Editing, FX, and Color Grading are done.
But that is only 1000$ which is NOTHING.

http://www.specticast.com/en/contents/dcp-mastering
https://www.charbon-studio.com/pricing/DCP
http://www.filmprint.cz/price_list_dcp.php

The resolution of the recorded content straight from the camera nowadays can be 6K or even 8K and take many Terabytes of HDD space,
but that is not a problem and quite cheap these days.
The workflow (cutting and editing) with 4K is not a challenge for even today's Desktop PC you and I have can handle with ease.
It is not the price of the type of the master 2K or 4K that makes the huge price difference.

So where do the millions go?
It almost single handedly the Visual Effects (VFX) which have to be rendered frame by frame using big rooms with huge power computers working 24h for days or weeks non stop.
The rendering is the last step of the whole computer generated graphics chain which sometimes consists of 100 people working to create all the animation and effects in a movie.

To save some (a lot) $ the editing and color grading can be in 4K but the VFX can be in 2K, thus the final Master is in 4K.

Why then the 4K Netflix drama looks so much better than Hollywoods endless billions of $ production?
Answer: NO computer generated visual effects on the Netflix drama.

[amoergosum]

Originally Posted by pawel86ck

Navrick@ why film studios cant provide blu-ray.com at least 5-10 legal screenshots? Movie review without screenshot is not the same

Anyway, these real UHD screenshots (even after HDR-SDR conversion) convinced me, I like what I'm seeing, no compression problems unlike HDTV 4K materials, and great colors.

Bluray


UHD


It looks like compossite signal vs RGB comparison to me. Colors on blurays dosnt look well saturated at all on my SDR monitor, and I cant imagine how well UHD with HDR and bt2020 will look on HDR HDTV.

Hmmm...that UHD crop looks oversaturated in my opinion.

[psicon]

Originally Posted by amoergosum

>>>

Blu-ray:



UHD:

Couldn't get a good picture of it with a camera but those 4 lights only look like the UHD shot with dynamic contrast on the player. On my settings they are clearly defined like the bd version. Non-HDR TV.

[James Freeman]

Originally Posted by amoergosum

Hmmm...that UHD crop looks oversaturated in my opinion.

We simply can NOT compare the down-conversion to rec709 capture of the UHD-BD with the 709 mastered BD.

The HD-BD is graded on a 709 monitor by person A and lives in a 709 color space.
The UHD-BD is graded on a DCI-P3 gamut monitor by person B and lives in a rec.2020 color space container.

When you watch a UHD-BD movie on a rec.709 TV what does the color space conversion from 2020 to 709?
The TV or the Player.

How do we know how accurate the conversion of color space?
WE DON'T!

So can we truly compare the color of both versions even if both are now in rec.709?
Absolutely not.

[Geoff D]

I think it's clear that the UHD caps shouldn't be judged as regards to colour, contrast, highlights etc compared to the standard Blu-ray, there are just too many variables which have been crudely chopped down to size by the SDR conversion (such as it is), which I presume has taken place at the player end before the screenshots have been extracted. I said they'd only be useful for judging spatial resolution and so it's proved.

[pawel86ck]

We simply can NOT compare the down-conversion to rec709 capture of the UHD-BD with the 709 mastered BD.

Of course on HDR display and BT2020 it will look much different (without cliped details like whites etc.), but even on these SDR screenshots I can see clear differences that I like.

For example I can see added clarity in "the martian" screenshots compared to BD even on fullHD monitor. Here's comparison:
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/164708

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

Screenshot comparison of 'The Martian' with the Blu-ray version:

[Show spoiler]

Looks like the reports of the UHD version having more noise were correct, like on the close-up of Mackenzie Davis. In that same shot there's only the teeny-tiniest fraction of extra detail in the UHD too.

And is it me, or is the black-on-white text on the label of the container that Damon is holding slightly more legible on the BD version?! But then, if we look at the little green and red warnings on the same label (Do and Do Not) the extra chroma resolution on the UHD (which is separate from colour space, HDR etc) means that the red Do Not is perfectly clear while it's illegible mush on the BD.

Swings and roundabouts. What these caps prove - at least to me and my blinkered viewpoint - is that the studio 4K upscaling isn't this incredibly amazing quantum leap over steam-driven consumer grade scaling that certain folks were saying it was, especially in terms of luma resolution. (Though not all scalers are considered equal, sure, as I reckon Sony's 4K TV upscaling is the best in the business so those with other brands may not feel the same way).

There are advantages to having the extra chroma resolution of 4:2:0 2160p as opposed to 4:2:0 1080p as I've just pointed out above, but would that extremely slender advantage be enough to spend upwards of £400 on for a UHD player on an SDR 4K TV? Hmmm. Even though I'm still gonna get the Panasonic player come what may, I'm gonna be wary of 2K upscaled stuff and might stick to true 4K finishes to start with. Then again, with the UHD combo packs having the regular Blu anyway I might as well get the UHD and at least I can make up my own mind using my own gear.

[James Freeman]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But then, if we look at the little green and red warnings on the same label (Do and Do Not) the extra chroma resolution on the UHD (which is separate from colour space, HDR etc) means that the red Do Not is perfectly clear while it's illegible mush on the BD.

Exactly what I stated at the AVSForums.
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-bl...ray-hd-tv.html

The 4:2:0 UHD retains 100% (4:4:4) of the upscaled 2K chroma information if it is first upscaled to 4K and only then truncated to 4:2:0.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by James Freeman

It may be more complicated than that.
The player receives EDID data from the TV and then does the conversion according to what the TV says it can do.
The captured UHD-BD images most likely were taken from a splitter and from scorpiontail60 TV setting which the Samsung Player responded to.

Whether scorpiontail60 played with the TV settings, the captured image would have looked differently, like psicon stated.

Sure, I'm not saying that there's any way to adjust it at the player end because you can't. The player's downconversion is at the mercy of whatever EDID it receives back from the TV, that pretty much goes without saying...so I didn't say it.

[pawel86ck]

James Freeeman@ thanks for your chroma explanation on AVS forum . Your pictures clearly shows that "washed out" look that I was speaking about. So it's possible, that thanks to this chroma resolution aspect these UHD shots looks better to me even on fullHD display.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/164708

Bluray 4:2:0 - 960x540 chroma color resolution
UHD 4:2:0 - 1920x1080 chroma color resolution

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by pawel86ck

James Freeeman@ thanks for your chroma explanation on AVS forum . Your pictures clearly shows that "washed out" look that I was speaking about. So it's possible, that thanks to this chroma resolution aspect these UHD shots looks better to me even on fullHD display.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/164708

Bluray 4:2:0 - 960x540 chroma color resolution
UHD 4:2:0 - 1920x1080 chroma color resolution

There's a lot more fine detail on the UHD in this shot, most noticeable on the mountain in the background.

[James Freeman]

@pawel86ck, don't be fooled by a better looking picture on the same monitor!

Here is what I can do in a few seconds in Paint.NET (Freeware PhotoShop):
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/164717
A more extreme one:
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/164726
It's the same photo with some gamma and range tweaking.

HDR and bigger color space simply are not reproduceable on a SDR rec.709 monitor.
The difference that you see in these comparison pictures is a simple grading techniques with absolutely the same contrast ratio and color gamut.
And no, you can't see more resolution between 2K and 1080p because they are the same.
What you can see is the destruction of detail because of low bitrate and difference in codecs.

Don't be fooled by the down-converted screenshots if they look more contrasty or colorful, you really need an HDR TV with actual wider color gamut.
Like myself and Geoff already stated, you simply can't compare anything but spatial resolution with these screenshots on a computer monitor or a standard rec.709 HDTV.

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

There's a lot more fine detail on the UHD in this shot, most noticeable on the mountain in the background.

More texture details in the sand too. Blu ray version looks a little blurry.

Where have we heard that before?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by ray0414

More texture details in the sand too. Blu ray version looks a little blurry.

Where have we heard that before?

I'd still like to see an exact frame comparison though, just to be sure, as the other UHD to BD comparisons for Martian which Scorpion posted have barely a gnat's todger between them in terms of sheer spatial resolution.